Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
ALK
Contributor
ALK
Posts: 15
Registered: ‎01-27-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Dramatic Personae/ALK



ziki wrote:


ALK wrote:
Happy to comply, but what is an "s/c thingy?"

ziki wrote:

Anyhow, could you please tell us more about how that s/c thingy set off your own train of thoughts?

ALK




dramatis vs. dramatic.




Sorry I did not get back to you earlier--I had a computer glitch, then had other obligations. There was nothing profound about my thinking on "dramatic personae" versus "dramatis personae." "Dramatis personae" is all Latin and, at the head of a playbill, means "Masks/roles/characters/parts of the play." "Dramatis" and "personae" are both Latin nouns and there relation to each other is marked by their endings--it would be the same if the word order were reversed.

"Dramatic personae," however, loses its coherence because the English adjective "dramatic" is not related to "dramatic" by endings--English has very few--word order is all important. You cannot say "personae dramatic" and have normal English--it would be like saying "houses red."

Therefore I read "dramatic personae" as a deliberate attempt to force us to think of what "dramatis personae" meant, not just as a meaningless rote phrase at the top of a playbill but about plays and masks and drama, in the English sense. Of course, the idea of masks, or chosen identities, comes up over and over again in MD.
Frequent Contributor
fanuzzir
Posts: 1,014
Registered: ‎10-22-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Dramatic Personae/ALK

That's a good reading of that word.
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Dramatic Personae/ALK



ALK wrote: You cannot say "personae dramatic" and have normal English--it would be like saying "houses red."




Oh, but I like saying houses red..it's more fun , even more fun if it is prohibited ;-)

OK, thanks for your reply, I gotcha.
ziki
ALK
Contributor
ALK
Posts: 15
Registered: ‎01-27-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Blame the English!

apropos of American Calvinism, an American historian, whose name I cannot recall, wrote a book, whose title I cannot remember, analyzing American voting patterns in New York State leading up to the Civil War. (It is in my book pile and can be mined out if necessary.) His conclusion was that Republicans (and their predecessors) tended to live in relatively settled areas, rural villages and farms, belonged to Calvinistic religions, and believed that there was only one correct way to live and passed laws ensuring that everyone else followed those rules.

Democrats belonged to non-Calvinistic religions, lived in wilder areas such as logging regions and big cities, and were much more live and let live.

Both parties have changed greatly since the 1850s but still seem to possess those characteristics--arrogant self certainty vs. acceptance of the possibility that oppposing views might carry some truth.

Our current president is a Republican and a born-again Christian.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Blame the English!

[ Edited ]
Ooh Ooh Ooh ALK, if I had written that I would have been chased off the boards:smileysurprised::smileyvery-happy: It is interesting though because the opposite is the case in the UK - wealthier and rural people live in our country areas and mainly vote Tory/Conservative.




ALK wrote:
apropos of American Calvinism, an American historian, whose name I cannot recall, wrote a book, whose title I cannot remember, analyzing American voting patterns in New York State leading up to the Civil War. (It is in my book pile and can be mined out if necessary.) His conclusion was that Republicans (and their predecessors) tended to live in relatively settled areas, rural villages and farms, belonged to Calvinistic religions, and believed that there was only one correct way to live and passed laws ensuring that everyone else followed those rules.

Democrats belonged to non-Calvinistic religions, lived in wilder areas such as logging regions and big cities, and were much more live and let live.

Both parties have changed greatly since the 1850s but still seem to possess those characteristics--arrogant self certainty vs. acceptance of the possibility that oppposing views might carry some truth.

Our current president is a Republican and a born-again Christian.

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-12-200704:51 PM

Scribe
Laurel
Posts: 5,747
Registered: ‎10-29-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Blame the English!

And what of Abraham Lincoln?



ALK wrote:
apropos of American Calvinism, an American historian, whose name I cannot recall, wrote a book, whose title I cannot remember, analyzing American voting patterns in New York State leading up to the Civil War. (It is in my book pile and can be mined out if necessary.) His conclusion was that Republicans (and their predecessors) tended to live in relatively settled areas, rural villages and farms, belonged to Calvinistic religions, and believed that there was only one correct way to live and passed laws ensuring that everyone else followed those rules.

Democrats belonged to non-Calvinistic religions, lived in wilder areas such as logging regions and big cities, and were much more live and let live.

Both parties have changed greatly since the 1850s but still seem to possess those characteristics--arrogant self certainty vs. acceptance of the possibility that oppposing views might carry some truth.

Our current president is a Republican and a born-again Christian.


"Truth must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for fiction is the creation of the human mind, and therefore is congenial to it." ~~G.K. Chesterton
ALK
Contributor
ALK
Posts: 15
Registered: ‎01-27-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Blame the English!

Laurel wrote: And what of Abraham Lincoln?

Good question. I don't know. It is difficult to apply a general, statistical statement to one particular individual. But it can serve to focus attention on an aspect of an individual that might be overlooked. I am not a student of Lincoln but will look into it because it might be a help in what I am interested in.
Frequent Contributor
fanuzzir
Posts: 1,014
Registered: ‎10-22-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Blame the English!

I'm ashamed to say that I do not know Lincoln's religious denomination either. The Republican party which nominated him in 1860 was weird amalgamam of old Whigs and Federalists, who did tend to come from New England and have definite ideas about right and wrong (slavery is bad; drinking might well be worse) and Free Soilers, who were invested in an antislavery west and in bringing land ownership to a new frontier entreprenurial class. One of their spokesmen was Horace Greely, who famously said, "Go West, young man," to discover the moral cleanliness of frontier living. (Of course you had to displace a new native American nations to do it.)
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Lincoln's religion

Extracts from 'Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents. Steiner 1936:-

"He was without faith in the Bible or its teachings. On this point the testimony is so overwhelming that there is no basis for doubt. In his early life Lincoln exhibited a powerful tendency to aggressive Infidelity. But when he grew to be a politician he became secretive and non-committal in his religious belief. He was shrewd enough to realize the necessity of reticence with the convictions he possessed if he hoped to succeed in politics."

'In 1846, when he was a candidate for Congress against a Methodist minister, the Rev. Peter Cartwright, his opponent openly accused him of being an unbeliever, and Lincoln never denied it. A story is told of Mr. Cartwright's holding a revival meeting while the campaign was in progress, during which Lincoln stepped into one of his meetings. When Cartwright asked the audience, "Will all who want to go to heaven stand up?" all arose except Lincoln. When he asked, "Now, will all who want to go to hell stand up?" Lincoln still remained in his seat. Mr. Cartwright then said, "All have stood up for one place or the other except Mr. Lincoln, and we would like to know where he expects to go." Lincoln arose and quietly said, "I am going to Congress," and there he went.'

'During February, 1892, the Chicago Herald published an editorial on Lincoln's religion. It is too lengthy to reproduce in full, but I quote the most important points:

"So it must be accepted as final by every reasonable mind that in religion Mr. Lincoln was a skeptic. But above all things he was not a hypocrite or pretender. He was a plain man, rugged and earnest, and he pretended to be nothing more. He believed in humanity, and he was incapable of Phariseeism. He had great respect for the feelings and convictions of others, but he was not a sniveler. He was honest and he was sincere, and taking him simply for what he was, we are not likely soon to see his like again."'

'Carl Sandburg, in his Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years, vol. 1, pp. 413-414, tells the exact truth about the alleged "conversion" of Lincoln by the Rev. James Smith, D. D.:

"The Lincoln's rented a pew in the church. Mrs. Lincoln took the sacrament, and joined in membership. (She had formerly been an Episcopalian.) The Rev. Mr. Smith presented Lincoln with a copy of his book, The Christian's Defense, a reply to Infidels and Atheists; it argued that the creation of the world, as told in the book of Genesis, the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, the flood which ended with Noah's ark on Mount Ararat were true events, that the books of the Old Testament are not forgeries, that a number of profane authors testify to the truth of the New Testament evangels, that only an Atheist can deny divine inspiration; the divine authority of the Scriptures is proved from prophecy and its fulfilment. Lincoln read The Christian's Defense, said he was interested, later attended revival meetings held in the First Presbyterian Church. But when asked to join the Church, he said he 'couldn't quite see it.'"'












fanuzzir wrote:
I'm ashamed to say that I do not know Lincoln's religious denomination either. The Republican party which nominated him in 1860 was weird amalgamam of old Whigs and Federalists, who did tend to come from New England and have definite ideas about right and wrong (slavery is bad; drinking might well be worse) and Free Soilers, who were invested in an antislavery west and in bringing land ownership to a new frontier entreprenurial class. One of their spokesmen was Horace Greely, who famously said, "Go West, young man," to discover the moral cleanliness of frontier living. (Of course you had to displace a new native American nations to do it.)


Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

just a thought



fanuzzir wrote: (Of course you had to displace a new native American nations to do it.)




What if Red Indians were allowed to live freely on the continent..and whities would stay out of it. I wonder what kind of situation we'd have today....

ziki
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Pip/ Dramatic Personae

How come Pip as a child was on the ship?

ziki
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: just a thought

Ditto Australia and New Zealand and I suppose South America today. Impossible to imagine Ziki:smileyhappy: As a Brit it makes me ponder 'what if' all those pesky Puritans had stayed in the England to fight their cause, instead of founding America:smileysurprised::smileysurprised::smileysurprised:




ziki wrote:


fanuzzir wrote: (Of course you had to displace a new native American nations to do it.)




What if Red Indians were allowed to live freely on the continent..and whities would stay out of it. I wonder what kind of situation we'd have today....

ziki


Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Pip/ Dramatic Personae

Exploitation of children in the 19C, sexual and/or otherwise?



ziki wrote:
How come Pip as a child was on the ship?

ziki


Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: just a thought

The 'English' island found some bigger islands (aka continents) to do away with unwanted elements. Amazing when you really think of it.

ziki
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: just a thought

Australia was the only island used for such a purpose I think. Yes, sad times:smileysad: Now we have ships offshore and you have Guantanamo.




ziki wrote:
The 'English' island found some bigger islands (aka continents) to do away with unwanted elements. Amazing when you really think of it.

ziki


Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: just a thought/MD as a symbol



Choisya wrote:
Australia was the only island used for such a purpose I think. Yes, sad times:smileysad: Now we have ships offshore and you have Guantanamo.




ziki wrote:
The 'English' island found some bigger islands (aka continents) to do away with unwanted elements. Amazing when you really think of it.

ziki







Might soon be shooting prisoners and unwanted human elements into outer space... ;-)
-----
Maybe Moby Dick is a symbol for all that is mystical, bigger than us, unpredictable that we have a need to conquer, explain, defeat....and can't.

ziki
Frequent Contributor
fanuzzir
Posts: 1,014
Registered: ‎10-22-2006
0 Kudos

Re: just a thought



Choisya wrote:
Ditto Australia and New Zealand and I suppose South America today. Impossible to imagine Ziki:smileyhappy: As a Brit it makes me ponder 'what if' all those pesky Puritans had stayed in the England to fight their cause, instead of founding America:smileysurprised::smileysurprised::smileysurprised:




ziki wrote:


fanuzzir wrote: (Of course you had to displace a new native American nations to do it.)




What if Red Indians were allowed to live freely on the continent..and whities would stay out of it. I wonder what kind of situation we'd have today....

ziki







Apparently, native peoples of the Northeast US were doing a good job of that, keeping English and French off their shores, for almost a hundred years until the Columbus plague of disease for which Native Americans had no immunity reached this region and decimated their numbers. This made it easier for English and French to defy previous treaty arrangements, and made native kings think these two funny European traders were easier to deal with than the hostile inland nations that were waiting to topple the vulnerable nations of the coast.

Many writers have also imagined a native culture coexisting with English. I would look for short stories by Lydia Maria Child, a nineteenth century writer and abolitionist who thought there was no reason for Indians and white Americans not to live in the same time and place.
Frequent Contributor
fanuzzir
Posts: 1,014
Registered: ‎10-22-2006
0 Kudos

Re: just a thought



ziki wrote:
The 'English' island found some bigger islands (aka continents) to do away with unwanted elements. Amazing when you really think of it.

ziki




The English originally intended the Virginia colony, their inaugural English colony, to be safety valve for the urban poor. They entered into something called "indentured servitude" whereby they were enslaved for seven years. In the 17th century, that's how England wanted to solve the problem of poverty: export it.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: just a thought

Thanks for this insight Fanuzzir. Perhaps B&N ought to put one of Lydia Maria's books up for us to read?




fanuzzir wrote:


Choisya wrote:
Ditto Australia and New Zealand and I suppose South America today. Impossible to imagine Ziki:smileyhappy: As a Brit it makes me ponder 'what if' all those pesky Puritans had stayed in the England to fight their cause, instead of founding America:smileysurprised::smileysurprised::smileysurprised:




ziki wrote:


fanuzzir wrote: (Of course you had to displace a new native American nations to do it.)




What if Red Indians were allowed to live freely on the continent..and whities would stay out of it. I wonder what kind of situation we'd have today....

ziki







Apparently, native peoples of the Northeast US were doing a good job of that, keeping English and French off their shores, for almost a hundred years until the Columbus plague of disease for which Native Americans had no immunity reached this region and decimated their numbers. This made it easier for English and French to defy previous treaty arrangements, and made native kings think these two funny European traders were easier to deal with than the hostile inland nations that were waiting to topple the vulnerable nations of the coast.

Many writers have also imagined a native culture coexisting with English. I would look for short stories by Lydia Maria Child, a nineteenth century writer and abolitionist who thought there was no reason for Indians and white Americans not to live in the same time and place.


Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: just a thought

We were very wicked people:smileyhappy: We also had a similar form of indenture for Indians who we 'encouraged' to go to the Caribbean sugar and tobacco plantations.




fanuzzir wrote:


ziki wrote:
The 'English' island found some bigger islands (aka continents) to do away with unwanted elements. Amazing when you really think of it.

ziki




The English originally intended the Virginia colony, their inaugural English colony, to be safety valve for the urban poor. They entered into something called "indentured servitude" whereby they were enslaved for seven years. In the 17th century, that's how England wanted to solve the problem of poverty: export it.


Users Online
Currently online: 35 members 610 guests
Please welcome our newest community members: