17 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: download (1).jpg]
I'm 23, from Dublin, and I'm 9 short stories deep in Joyce's acclaimed Dubliners, I'm just wondering what feelings you guys harbour towards the collection? Personally, it's a struggle getting through this. It feels like he wrote with too much theme in mind, rather than plot. The theme is generally too subtle and tenuous to derive any great enlightenment from the collection. I liked Araby, and Eveline. There are genius turns of phrase, outstanding imagery, of which several are burned into my mind, which is an appraisal in itself. I read someone on here saying something to the ignorant token of ''if you write for plot nowadays you're dumb, it's all about theme''. I'm of the opposite, there has to be a clarity even to the purposeful ambiguity of the short story. It shouldn't just be an exercise in banality.
4 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: 17303945.jpg]
Hi my kindly brothers.
Most of the times when someone mentions Goethe someone other will thinks about "The Sorrows of Young Werther" or "Faust", only few of them will think about what I'm here to talking about: Elective Affinities.
Take ingredients useful for a chemical theory, go to the laboratory and then let them mix.
This is probably how someone can explain in few words what the novel is about, but it would even be a lie because passions don't work on a exact way, the A element can be confused with the B, also the C with the D; what a mess can this achieves? Oh, there is even an answer, and if you want you can find it.
5 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: Edgar_Allan_Poe_portrait_B.jpg]
So I've started reading E.A. Poe and it's pretty hard.
While enjoyable, I've often needed to read the same passage multiple times to understand the picture, forget any meaning possibly involved.
For instance, in Masque of Red Death, which I've read over and over again in it's entirety,
I still don't understand how the rooms are set up.
Could anyone elaborate for me?
3 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: seven-types.jpg]
Before I ask the main questions of this thread (concerning the famous critical book 7 Types of Ambiguity, by William Empson) I would like to make some considerations about the underestimated class of workers known as literary critics.
I really think that good literary critics are some of the best professors a writer can have during his life. These man and women spend great part of their lives, hours and hours of their days, focusing on certain aspects on the work of a particular author (or authors), and generally they do it for no other reason than simply by pure love and respect for the writers they analyze. Generally these critics do not acquire fame or glory, and are only known and respect by a few scholars and readers. It’s very rare for a literary critic to achieve fame, and when that happens it’s mostly because it is an asshole with edgy opinions and obnoxious personality, being that people buy he’s or her books not because of its content, but because of the stupid personality of the author (Harold Bloom is an example).
Since Shakespeare is my favorite writer I have read a lot of criticism on him, and my personal list of best critical books about Shakespeare is this one (in no particular order):
>Shakespeare’s Imagery, by Caroline Spurgeon;
>Shakespeare’s Language, by Frank Kermode;
>Shakespeare’s Metrical Art, by George T. Wright;
>The Development of Shakespeare’s imagery, by Wolfgang Clemen;
>The Poetry of Shakespeare’s Plays, by F.E. halliday;
>Shakespeare’s Uses of The Arts of Language, by Sister Mirian Joseph;
>The Language of Shakespeare’s Plays, by B. Ifor Evans
Many of these books are not particularly famous, but I can guarantee that my development as a reader (and above all, as a writer) was tremendously enhanced due to the works of these man and women. I thank them from all my heart for they works, for all the time and effort they have dedicated to analyze aspects of Shakespeare’s writing that would seem, to the majority of population, of no interest. By reading these books one develops an enormous sense of awe and wonder for Shakespeare. He was truly a colossal genius of language.
But this thread is about 7 Types of Ambiguity, by William Empson. I have never read this book, but I was recently leafing through a copy of it at random and, no matter which page I look up, the text was always incredibly enlightening. So my question is:
>You guys who have read this book, please, speak what you thought of it. What was your impression of the work? Is it really a critical must read?
Thank you all.