| Author |
Message |
Head_Prosthesis
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 8:25 pm: |   |
Either way, the monkey sounds good. |
Mr_Rabid
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 8:08 pm: | |
Purple prose is sort of overdone, melodramatic. Prose with extra cheese. Prose kool-aid with two packets of grape instead of the reccommended one.
Regular prose:
"I looked to the moon- it minded me of those days in Paris with Leroy the shaven monkey."
Purple prose:
"I gazed upwards, and the moon struck my eye, a silver lance thrown by a dark goddess. My mind was drawn back, a sailor pulled from shore by a killing tide, to Paris, city of lights, city of tears. Leroy the shaven monkey danced before my inner eye, pink and wrinkled like a giant rat, and twice as unsanitary." |
Chrysippvs
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 7:37 pm: | |
"I don't think elitist pegs Justin exactly"
I don't anything pegs any of us exactly...
- J |
Anatomist
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 7:37 pm: | |
OK. That was actually pretty funny. The timing was just right.
K. |
Head_Prosthesis
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 7:22 pm: | |
I don't get it... |
Etienne
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 7:08 pm: | |
Not all of us are artists, poets or musicians.
Nor would we want to be. |
Marccampbell
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 6:50 pm: | |
pretentious? |
Verawench
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 5:08 pm: | |
I don't think elitist pegs Justin exactly... Blackjack, won't you find us a good word for "man of obscure scholarly interests"? |
Destiny
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 5:04 pm: | |
It's not you Justin, Anatomist just doesn't like us rubes. |
_Blackjack
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 5:01 pm: | |
Justin dosn't strike me as elitist, but maybe that's because I know what he's talking about... |
Chrysippvs
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 4:48 pm: | |
Anatomist,
You just made the monocle fall out of my eye into my glass of brandy, ole chap!
You are curious in the end, perhaps you can be the forum's new firebrand.
- J |
Anatomist
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 4:43 pm: | |
Crying? I wasn't aware of any crying. I'd say that's a pretty lame attempt at obfuscation. I was just insulting you because everything you type smacks of such a Victorian elitist attitude that it effects my CNS like the sound of steel scraping across slate. Do you deliberately thrust out your lower jaw when you speak?
K. |
Chrysippvs
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 4:42 pm: | |
Also a question for an audience I am sure would know...what does "purple prose" I see if used to describe some authors (including Lovecraft) and it isn't in the dictionary (they ask me if I meant to spell "pooper-scooper)."
thanks, this place is better than more dictionaries and encyclopedias anyhow...
- J |
Chrysippvs
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 4:29 pm: | |
Anatomist,
What has you crying about me?
- J |
_Blackjack
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 1:29 pm: | |
Quote:I have a huge boner
Somehow I can't picture that... |
Anatomist
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 12:19 pm: | |
"I can't honestly think of a author I loathe more than Jane Austen...."
This makes perfect sense to me. I can't honestly think of a person more similar to all the snobs and fops she ruthlessly parodies than you.
K. |
Admin
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 11:07 am: | |
I have a huge boner for 18th century literature; defoe, smollett, fielding (especially), burney, and the century is nicely tied up with austen. Not everyone's dish o' tay, but I admire the earthy rusticity of the early english novels. Austen, while not as rambunctious in her published fiction, exudes a sort of wry pragmatism that is sooo refreshing when compared with the hystrionics of the gothic novel (which she frequently spoofed) or the later romantics. her juvenilia, on the other hand, is an entirely different story. It is wild, rambunctious, over the top satire, and remains at the top of my reading list. anyone who is remotely familiar with her regular fiction would be stunned (hopefully not unpleasantly) by her adolescent farces.
*steps off lit-whore soapbox* |
Chrysippvs
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 10:17 am: | |
I can't honestly think of a author I loathe more than Jane Austen....It is a Stoic's understanding of the word "scatology"...
- J |
Angryp
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 8:06 am: | |
Persuasion? Saw that movie. There was no chemistry between the leads. The actors seemed to wander aimlessly from scene to scene. No life to that flick.
P&P was a very good adaptation. Have it on DVD. Watch it lots. |
Admin
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 7:01 am: | |
I loved them both, but Persuasion was produced for TELEVISION in the UK, and released to theaters here.
Compare the standards.
On that note, the BBC's Pride & Prejudice beats them all. |
Anatomist
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 2:29 am: | |
I don't know about trueness to the book, but SENSE AND SENSIBILITY was big-budget hollywood tripe compared to PERSUASION, the best Austen film by far.
K. |
Angryp
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 - 2:33 pm: | |
If Jackson had not made the rather large and IMHO completely unnecessary changes to Aragorn's arc, I might have thought better of the film. I still would have cringed through Lothlorien, though.
I think a better translation of a book to film was Emma Thompson's adaptation of Sense and Sensibilty. Very little of the original dialog survived the transition from print to film. Still, the movie very much retains the essense of Austin's original work.
Thompson has remarked that she's been congratulated by fans of the book on her adaptation of certian scenes that were never in the book in the first place. IMHO, that shows that one can sucessfully adapt a novel, retaining very little of the original work, but keeping its spirit intact.
I realize that I'm firmly in the minority opinion on FotR and I imagine that the next two movies will do gangbusters. They just won't do it with my $10/each. I'm sure Jackson is crushed  |
_Blackjack
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 - 1:58 pm: | |
Angryp:
Ah, so it sin't that you thought the movie was bad, it's just that you're a big geek and can't just relax for 3 hours and enjoy a ripping good film without nit-picking it to death. ;)
Of course it wasn't exactly like the book. It was a MOVIE. Peter Jackson did about as good a job as I can possibly imagine at translating the spirit and CONTENT of the novel into a different medium. I don't agree with ALL of his choices (I'd have sat there for an extra hour to see Tom Bombardil...) but he hit a lot more than he missed. Honestly, it was probably the truest adaptation from bok to film I've seen in a long time.
(And if you are going to complain about Aragorn's not looking the way you imagined, don't go citing the Bakshi version. He made Borimir look like Hagaar the Horrible...) |
Angryp
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 - 1:45 pm: | |
Quote: in an interview with peter jackson on charlie rose he said he just finished editing the dvd version which he said is an additional 30 (or so) extra minutes. let's postpone peter's crucifiction until after that.
Unless he changed major plot elements, he'll stay nailed to my cross .
Like I said, I don't have any problems with much of the streamlining Jackson made to the story. It's his "re-imagining" of major plot elements that really, really annoys me.
Oh, and I can't believe that I forgot to include Woody on my faves list. Annie Hall and Sleeper both definitely make the grade. |
Rimbaud
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 - 1:42 pm: | |
Did someone say Woody Allen? "Sleeper" is one of my favorite comedies of all time! |
|
