And lo on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:38:57 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> This is another link to something like it:
> http://www.lonelyplanet.com/travelstories/article/monkeyingaroundinchina_1206/
> The start of the monkey king's journey to the west (i.e., into India) is  
> where the movie itself basically ends. This describes much more like the  
> story I remember, with the staff and golden headband.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_(TV_series)

Ah for shame Wikipedia says it wasn't shown in the USA, you missed some  
quality TV there.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>>> In any case, that's what it's supposed to do. If some time in your life, 
>>> someone tells you not to hire some particular lawyer because he's a real 
>>> shylock, you'll know what it means.
>> Actually, considering Shylock's character, I'm not 100% sure I know what 
>> they're trying to imply.
> 
> Shylock in the play is not the Shylock that people think he is. This
> is where culture comes in. You need to understand the reference and
> the popular understanding of it as well.

Spakespeare seems to have deliberately written Shylock so it's ambiguous 
exactly who he is. [Presumably this is why the bigwigs love Shakespeare 
so much...]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:40:47 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Stephen wrote:
>> It's cultural Warp, Calling someone ignorant implies that they are
>> boorish. Quite a bad insult.
>
> Note, however, that it's perfectly acceptable to say "John is ignorant  
> of what happened last week" or some such. Unfortunately, "ignorant" has  
> gotten bad connotations and I don't know any word that means similar  
> that doesn't.  "Naive" is about as close as it comes.  (I have said  
> people are "computer naive" and it seems to bother people less than  
> saying they're "ignorant of computer technology" or some such.)

Only because they're ignorant about what naive means :-P

Most neutral term seems to be "didn't know" or "don't know" - "John didn't  
know what happened last night" oops "John can't remember what happened  
last night" ;-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> So why does everybody act surprised that I don't know certain rather 
>> obscure facts? 
> 
> Because many of the facts you say you don't know really aren't very 
> obscure, or if they are obscure, shouldn't be obscure in *your* culture. 
> (Like, who RMS is. :-)

Meh. Who gets to decide what is or is not "obscure" anyway?

> Now, I'll grant that making movie references (like to the Wicked Witch), 
> I discounted that you're in a foreign country and maybe they don't show 
> that classic amazingly famous movie on TV every single year. But it *is* 
> classic *and* amazingly famous.

And it is also a movie that I really, really hate.

>> People accuse me of being stupid, but I do realise there was a real 
>> ship called the Titanic, that really did sink when it hit an iceberg. 
>> As surely does most of the population?
> 
> They'd say "Why should we? What makes you think we studied the same 
> history bits you did?"

Studied? No. Heard vague references to it? You'd think so...

>> To me, not recognising the theme tune to the Wicked Witch of the West 
>> just isn't on the same level as the two examples above.
> 
> Actually, I suspect you'd recognise it if you heard it.

I did. [Not much of a "tune" though - no idea who you'd whistle that...]

>> Depends if the actors know what the hell they're performing or not. ;-)
> 
> Well, true. This was a professionally-staged play, not a high-school 
> performance or something. :-)

Even BBC Spakespeare productions shown on TV look cripplingly low-budget 
and seem completely incomprehensible. [And I know the damned script!]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>>> Or any game, really, that's rigged so the house wins most of the time.
>> Same thing applies, tho. I win most of the time.  I lose bigger, but I
>> win most of the time.
> 
> Depends on the game.  I can manage to win pretty consistently at 
> blackjack regardless of whether I win individual hands or not - with 
> enough money, that's easy to do using a simple geometric progression and 
> some restraint to "stick to the plan".  But if I put the idea into 
> practice in Las Vegas, I'd probably end up banned from the casinos if I 
> won too much.  The house doesn't like to lose, and they don't like when 
> people who understand how to turn the odds in their favour show up and 
> provide a real-world demonstration that it is in fact possible.
> 
> Even still, if you're careful, you can manage to do this and not get 
> caught at it - changing tables or casinos frequently makes it very 
> difficult for them to track a pattern.  Not following the geometric 
> progression exactly also helps make it less obvious.
> 
> Some games are rigged closely enough to 50/50 odds that most people don't 
> think about the fact that they're not.  Roulette is one like that; IIRC, 
> your odds of winning are not 50% but 47%.

I love the way people say "rigged". I mean, you walk up to a towering 
casino that's using 200 kW to light up half the Vegas night sky, and you 
wonder how they pay for this? Well *obviously* the dice are stacked in 
their favour - if it weren't, they'd go out of business pretty damned 
fast. ;-) It's their *job* to take your money way... They just do a good 
job of making it look like "luck".

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:52:24 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:18:12 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>>
>> Presumably this is why all schoolchildren [in the UK at least] have
>> Shakespear inflicted upon them as a mandatory component of their
>> education. I still can't figure out what good it's supposed to do.
>>
> It does no good what so ever. The reason is, IM(NS)HO that the
> Cultural (large C) grandees think that it should be taught because
> Shakespeare is the bard and he is important. And this is coming from
> someone who has seen all of his plays at least three times.
> Shakespeare is inappropriate for children, they cannot understand the
> language. Who amongst us understands the joke in Troilus and Cressida
> when someone asks where Ajax is and the answer is "Looking for
> himself" You need to know that Ajax sounds like "a jacksie" or an old
> fashioned name for a toilet. That is he was crapping himself. Also the
> world view in Shakespeare is too adult for children.
> Which reminds me I must get on with my entry for the TC-RTC "The
> Tempest" ;)

Likewise I think it was in the Science of the Discworld: The Globe that  
had two characters discussing one of Shakespeares plays and discussing a  
line that near had them wet themselves with laughter and to which modern  
readers would be going "Huh?"

Hamlet: Lady, shall I lie in your lap?
Ophelia: No, my lord.
Hamlet: I mean, my head upon your lap?
Ophelia: Aye, my lord.
Hamlet: Do you think I meant country matters?
Ophelia: I think nothing, my lord.
Hamlet: That's a fair thought to lie between maids' legs.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

a9fg54l5btk1s87hemar5bm6ht4d3si961@4ax.com...

> Shakespeare is inappropriate for children, they cannot understand the
> language. Who amongst us understands the joke in Troilus and Cressida
> when someone asks where Ajax is and the answer is "Looking for
> himself" You need to know that Ajax sounds like "a jacksie" or an old
> fashioned name for a toilet. That is he was crapping himself.

Actually I think that's what makes it particularly suitable for children (or 
at least young teenagers). The fact that the dirty jokes and innuendos have 
to be explained to modern audiences - and some, like the "two backed beast", 
don't really have to - does not make them less palatable. There's a healthy 
dose of slapstick and crude humor in Shakespeare that makes it very 
attractive to kids, provide you give them the keys of course.

G.

Post a reply to this message

On 17 Jun 2008 22:31:59 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:12:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:08:07 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>"Lead on, McDuff"
>> 
>> "Lay on MacDuff..."  ;)
>
>I'm still trying to figure out what Richard's got to do with it.....
>

That's a whoosh! Way over my head ???
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:08:56 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
>Spakespeare seems to have deliberately written Shylock so it's ambiguous 
>exactly who he is. [Presumably this is why the bigwigs love Shakespeare 
>so much...]

Yes, it is open to interpretation and that is how literary types spend
their time :)
He is not (IMO) just a pantomime villain but a man driven to
distraction by the prejudice against his religion. (Jews gave Jesus up
for crucifixion, all of them are to blame) And later with his daughter
eloping with a gentile.

Now the Jew of Malta by Christopher Marlowe, was written about the
same time and does not suffer from the same claims of anti-Semitism.
Maybe because it is less well known or maybe because Barabas is just
an evil man who is also a Jew.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:25:27 +0200, "Gilles Tran"
<gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:


>a9fg54l5btk1s87hemar5bm6ht4d3si961@4ax.com...
>
>> Shakespeare is inappropriate for children, they cannot understand the
>> language. Who amongst us understands the joke in Troilus and Cressida
>> when someone asks where Ajax is and the answer is "Looking for
>> himself" You need to know that Ajax sounds like "a jacksie" or an old
>> fashioned name for a toilet. That is he was crapping himself.
>
>Actually I think that's what makes it particularly suitable for children (or 
>at least young teenagers). The fact that the dirty jokes and innuendos have 
>to be explained to modern audiences - and some, like the "two backed beast", 
>don't really have to - does not make them less palatable. There's a healthy 
>dose of slapstick and crude humor in Shakespeare that makes it very 
>attractive to kids, provide you give them the keys of course.
>
That's the argument that I used to use until I realised that it was my
own personal likes I was trying to promote. Anyway it is not taught
like that in Britain, at least not when I was at school. We were given
school editions with the obvious smutty bits cut out. (Put your hand
to the buttery bar etc.) We concentrate on the "beauty" of the
language, the relevance to modern day and "you will learn it 'cause I
say so. Not on the entertainment and fun. Countrie matters, rustics
and rude mechanicals are treated as something to apologise for. (Even
The Great Shakespeare had to pander to the base tastes of the paying
public.) 
OK I'll get down off my high horse, whether it costs me my kingdom or
not :)
Yes! Stephen get down off the stove you're too old to be riding the
range :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message