Just finished Oedipus Rex; now I'm working on Oedipus at Colonus.
The moral of the first story, as far as I can tell, is 'Don't kill your father and then bone your mother.' A bit complex, I know, but if you read the story it makes sense.
Also nature of free will and the gods and all that.
Prose should flow like liquid, but as it stands my seems to be all frozen up. Grammar, punctuation, and all other form of artifice is clogging up my thought -- I even feel anxious about putting this em dash in here! It's ridiculous!
I want my words to be lithe, strong, and free; I want them to pour out of my mouth, in a gentle legato, then a forceful staccato; I want to make people laugh, then think; I want to go on endless, beautiful sentences -- because anything that's beautiful should never end.
But I can't.
Lately, it seems, I question myself. I turn, and I twist, and I throw out my literary back. My sentences looks like house cats, not tigers; they're small and tame, not majestic and wild. It's shameful. It's shameful and it needs to stop.
So, to that end, I wrote this post. Hopefully the dam's already burst, and the water will get to flowing again. If not, oh well, I guess I'll survive another lexical winter of cold, cheerless prose. Feel free to post what you want, how you want it, in hopes that you can get your own gears working as well. Or don't, I really don't mind either way.
While the apologies outlined herein do, admittedly, hold merit, should we not further expound upon the potential dismissal of verbosity prevalent with the less extravagant spelling 'donut'? Why should the upstanding gentlefellow thus unnecessarily minimalize his or her ability to expel the fullest and most luminous linguistic constructions? Are such instances of lingual efficiency so imperative that a flamboyant flourish finds offense in critical response?
I can only pray the morrow bears forth a courteous consideration on the contents hereof.
Farewell.
To the esteemed gentleman,
I must eulogize you, sir, for the most sagacious consideration you have shown thus far. Truly, I am envious of your ability to excogitate.
Pleasantries aside, however, I must maintain that the spelling 'donut' is the superior form the word must take, not only for matters of practice, but of art. 'Doughnut' is a cumbersome, wasteful construction; it lends itself in no way to the polished prose we have become accustomed to in our studies of all things literary and just.
Indeed, 'donut' serves its role much more admirably than its tumefied and boisterous cousin; whereas 'doughnot' clogs the mouth and muddles the meter of the sentence, 'donut' creates a gentle but forceful staccato of words which the artist or the philosopher may use to both amuse and convince his reader.
Therefore, I deprecate this construction not on grounds of 'efficiency,' as has been argued, but on grounds of aesthetics.
Truly a most elegant exposition on the state of this most dire concern. By far the most salubrious method through which to undertake the task, neigh, obligation, of spelling a word as prominent as donut is it's most simple form; to dictate any contradiction to this would be injurious to every well meaning party presently involved.
I thank you dearly, not only for the laurels bestowed upon me, but for easing an otherwise solicitous conscience.
Indeed, I was afraid my harangue would be the death knell of an otherwise noble and magnanimous thread, heretofore given over to the best intentions, but now it seems to be the opposite -- especially now that you have joined in this learned and scholarly discussion.
So, from the depths of my being, accept this invocation of my thanks with the warmness you have already shown me.
It is with the gravest and most elegiac of hearts that I must inform you of your sub-par diction. Indeed, the very thrust of the initial post seems to have been lost, and I must say that it saddens and embitters me to think that the godly virtue of reading comprehension has been lost in these hollowed lands.
Truly, these are dark times.
Nonetheless, I can not pretend to a seat of comfort while the verbal deprivation of these forums continue.
So, I must begin with all soberness by saying that it is clear, as the unjust and haughty nose on your face, that the correct and just spelling of this term is 'donut.' If a word may be expressed in a simpler form, why should it not be done? It expedites what would have been a laborious process and with all due haste allows the writer to focus the full breadth of his thought to the substance of the subject at hand, rather than to its spelling.
The former, I should say, is the primary focus of any literary struggle, while the latter is naught but technical chicanery. We need vaster vocabularies, true, but they should be made up of the most common sense of spellings and constructions.
GREETINGS, SALUTATIONS AND WELCOME BROTHERS AND SISTERS
I bid you all a warm introduction to the Loquacious Society of Verbose and Meaningless Debates; a scholarly circle dedicated to the propagation of empty thoughts and full language to all corners of this cherished and much browsed realm.
Indeed, the primary function of this learned organ is the lexical edification of the entire board -- starting, humbly, with this first post.
To wit: debates on all manner of topics will be held, and the participants therewithin will bring their best words to the battle of the mouths. Inspired by their curiosity and passion, posters will be forced to look up words they do not know, thereby expanding their rhetorical toolkit in the form of new nouns, verbs, adjectives, phrases, and all manner of euphemisms.
The first topic of heated and impassioned discussion: the correct spelling of the round confection we all enjoy:
Is it a doughnut? Or a dohnut? Or perhaps a donut?
Ah, I see no one's watched the news today. This story might interest you guys:
On a much more sober note: I genuinely like Regular Show and I think Adventure Time is one of the best cartoons to come out in a while.
I find both Johnnie Test and Amazing World of Gumball, on the other hand, to be sub-par (although perhaps that's just because they're marketed to people a little younger than me, whilst Regular Show and Adventure Time seem to be aimed at people right in my demographic.)
A holy man, or a confessor of sorts.
An educator, in the vein of a philosopher or a scientist.
Only two guesses.
Also, in the ever-so-likely event that I'm wrong; I'd like to make it a point to mention that a good deal of this person's service occurs at night, or something symbolized by night.
The idea that there are thousands of lights, calling out in the darkness, just waiting to be served by this person might suggest several things, now that I think about it. For one thing: the person could be an educator, or someone who brings people 'out of the dark' or, as its put in the riddle, (and here I paraphrase) 'into the dawn,' so to speak.
In fact, "till dawn I bring" could refer either to the passage of time or, again, to the passage of ignorance or whatever the night represents: the dawn either simply comes, or in the more active sense, the person literally 'brings the dawn' to people.
Moreover, the idea that "broken worlds" are being fixed could refer to the idea that someone is making sense of the world as a philosopher is prone to, or even a scientist; the people who attempt to bring what is usually a confounding place like the universe out of the darkness and into the light for us to understand it.
Finally, the idea that, once you're enlightened or know the truth you can't forget it, would lend more evidence to the idea that, in the general sense, this person's role is to elucidate things to those around them.
I mean, come on man; you're a teenager -these are prime angst years that you'll never get back. Might as well make use of them.
So, on the fiction side:
The Book of Disquiet by Fernando Pessoa The Stranger by Albert Camus The Trial by Franz Kafka (or, really, anything by Franz Kafka) Frankenstein by Mary Shelly Notes From the Underground by Fyodor Dostoyesvky
And on the nonfiction side (look at how smart you are):
The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand
The nice thing is that most of these are pretty short, and you probably don't even need to read them; just quote some of the stuff off of the back of the books and you'll probably be in good shape to start writing bad poetry and petulant essays about how we need to kill rich and/or poor people, depending on which books you scooped out of the Barnes and Noble sales bin.
0
The moral of the first story, as far as I can tell, is 'Don't kill your father and then bone your mother.' A bit complex, I know, but if you read the story it makes sense.
Also nature of free will and the gods and all that.
0
I want my words to be lithe, strong, and free; I want them to pour out of my mouth, in a gentle legato, then a forceful staccato; I want to make people laugh, then think; I want to go on endless, beautiful sentences -- because anything that's beautiful should never end.
But I can't.
Lately, it seems, I question myself. I turn, and I twist, and I throw out my literary back. My sentences looks like house cats, not tigers; they're small and tame, not majestic and wild. It's shameful. It's shameful and it needs to stop.
So, to that end, I wrote this post. Hopefully the dam's already burst, and the water will get to flowing again. If not, oh well, I guess I'll survive another lexical winter of cold, cheerless prose. Feel free to post what you want, how you want it, in hopes that you can get your own gears working as well. Or don't, I really don't mind either way.
2
0
To the esteemed gentleman,
I must eulogize you, sir, for the most sagacious consideration you have shown thus far. Truly, I am envious of your ability to excogitate.
Pleasantries aside, however, I must maintain that the spelling 'donut' is the superior form the word must take, not only for matters of practice, but of art. 'Doughnut' is a cumbersome, wasteful construction; it lends itself in no way to the polished prose we have become accustomed to in our studies of all things literary and just.
Indeed, 'donut' serves its role much more admirably than its tumefied and boisterous cousin; whereas 'doughnot' clogs the mouth and muddles the meter of the sentence, 'donut' creates a gentle but forceful staccato of words which the artist or the philosopher may use to both amuse and convince his reader.
Therefore, I deprecate this construction not on grounds of 'efficiency,' as has been argued, but on grounds of aesthetics.
0
I thank you dearly, not only for the laurels bestowed upon me, but for easing an otherwise solicitous conscience.
Indeed, I was afraid my harangue would be the death knell of an otherwise noble and magnanimous thread, heretofore given over to the best intentions, but now it seems to be the opposite -- especially now that you have joined in this learned and scholarly discussion.
So, from the depths of my being, accept this invocation of my thanks with the warmness you have already shown me.
0
Dear sir,
It is with the gravest and most elegiac of hearts that I must inform you of your sub-par diction. Indeed, the very thrust of the initial post seems to have been lost, and I must say that it saddens and embitters me to think that the godly virtue of reading comprehension has been lost in these hollowed lands.
Truly, these are dark times.
Nonetheless, I can not pretend to a seat of comfort while the verbal deprivation of these forums continue.
So, I must begin with all soberness by saying that it is clear, as the unjust and haughty nose on your face, that the correct and just spelling of this term is 'donut.' If a word may be expressed in a simpler form, why should it not be done? It expedites what would have been a laborious process and with all due haste allows the writer to focus the full breadth of his thought to the substance of the subject at hand, rather than to its spelling.
The former, I should say, is the primary focus of any literary struggle, while the latter is naught but technical chicanery. We need vaster vocabularies, true, but they should be made up of the most common sense of spellings and constructions.
0
I bid you all a warm introduction to the Loquacious Society of Verbose and Meaningless Debates; a scholarly circle dedicated to the propagation of empty thoughts and full language to all corners of this cherished and much browsed realm.
Indeed, the primary function of this learned organ is the lexical edification of the entire board -- starting, humbly, with this first post.
To wit: debates on all manner of topics will be held, and the participants therewithin will bring their best words to the battle of the mouths. Inspired by their curiosity and passion, posters will be forced to look up words they do not know, thereby expanding their rhetorical toolkit in the form of new nouns, verbs, adjectives, phrases, and all manner of euphemisms.
The first topic of heated and impassioned discussion: the correct spelling of the round confection we all enjoy:
1
On a much more sober note: I genuinely like Regular Show and I think Adventure Time is one of the best cartoons to come out in a while.
I find both Johnnie Test and Amazing World of Gumball, on the other hand, to be sub-par (although perhaps that's just because they're marketed to people a little younger than me, whilst Regular Show and Adventure Time seem to be aimed at people right in my demographic.)
0
All other colors go home.
1
0
An educator, in the vein of a philosopher or a scientist.
Only two guesses.
Also, in the ever-so-likely event that I'm wrong; I'd like to make it a point to mention that a good deal of this person's service occurs at night, or something symbolized by night.
The idea that there are thousands of lights, calling out in the darkness, just waiting to be served by this person might suggest several things, now that I think about it. For one thing: the person could be an educator, or someone who brings people 'out of the dark' or, as its put in the riddle, (and here I paraphrase) 'into the dawn,' so to speak.
In fact, "till dawn I bring" could refer either to the passage of time or, again, to the passage of ignorance or whatever the night represents: the dawn either simply comes, or in the more active sense, the person literally 'brings the dawn' to people.
Moreover, the idea that "broken worlds" are being fixed could refer to the idea that someone is making sense of the world as a philosopher is prone to, or even a scientist; the people who attempt to bring what is usually a confounding place like the universe out of the darkness and into the light for us to understand it.
Finally, the idea that, once you're enlightened or know the truth you can't forget it, would lend more evidence to the idea that, in the general sense, this person's role is to elucidate things to those around them.
But food for thought.
0
I mean, come on man; you're a teenager -these are prime angst years that you'll never get back. Might as well make use of them.
So, on the fiction side:
The Book of Disquiet by Fernando Pessoa
The Stranger by Albert Camus
The Trial by Franz Kafka (or, really, anything by Franz Kafka)
Frankenstein by Mary Shelly
Notes From the Underground by Fyodor Dostoyesvky
And on the nonfiction side (look at how smart you are):
The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus
Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx
Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell
The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand
The nice thing is that most of these are pretty short, and you probably don't even need to read them; just quote some of the stuff off of the back of the books and you'll probably be in good shape to start writing bad poetry and petulant essays about how we need to kill rich and/or poor people, depending on which books you scooped out of the Barnes and Noble sales bin.
0
Made for Portal 2
0
0