«

[Bobbin Threadbare]

Ouch indeed!

Originally posted by A. J. Raffles+Jul 10 2005, 05:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (A. J. Raffles @ Jul 10 2005, 05:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Triton
However, before the radio, the printed word was the primary source of entertainment all the way back to 1450 when Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. The printed word couldn't possibly have been the primary source of entertainment at a time when the great majority of people was unable to read and books were still rather expensive. Reading didn't really become that widespread until about the nineteenth century when a large number of people were actually able to read. Before that, the "primary source of entertainment" as you call it would have been dancing and music - yes, there was music before the invention of the radio.[/b][/quote]
I wasn't very clear on this. Though the first use of the printing press was to print the Bible, the world was opened up to the ability to spread information of any kind quickly and easily. Music and theater were around, but the music and scripts were not available to all conductors and players before the printing press was available, so culture only spread so far. Besides, the ability to print sheets of music allowed for music to evolve more quickly by allowing the composer more time to write new music and experiment with new ideas instead of copying music by hand and paying amanuenses to help. With the availability of written music and printed scripts, other bands in other parts of Europe could perform music written by different composers or play stories by different playwrights.

Originally posted by o m g+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (o m g)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>i am finding this topic quite funny really, just an excuse to show others how you are one of the reading class and to mock those who dont like to read as being lower than you all. also the dissing of people who use slang. the thing is on any other site than this i use a lot of slang. not like leet, but i will type a bit more like i talk on sites that are more people who speak english as a primary language. i dont think that makes me inferior to you who study this language. so you all hate people who use slang. well your going to have a lot of fun when you come over here then arnt you ....... people in england do not speak *properly.* for a long time after meeting my wife i would have to switch to using *queens* english so she would understand me. and still 5 years on i have to de slang certain tv shows for her so she understands.[/b]

O m g, do you have to troll in EVERY thread? My thread has to do with people of MY language being too stupid to read and not knowing as much grammar as they should, and how it affects the literary arts. Go away if you can't contribute anything reasonable.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sebatianos
There is still a certain procentage of readers (and these represent the core). There probably was a slightly higher procentage of these readers in some periods in the past, but not much higher. As I stated before: No more then 15% (tops) are actually intelectuals (among other things - these are the people who read for the pure enjoyment of reading).
Just one more thing:
An intelectual isn't simply someone who has a job where he would have to work more with a brain then with muscles. An intelectual is someone who cherishes knowledge.
So a lawyer who never read a book (even if he has tones of them on his book shelves), never visited an art galery, never seen an opera... (at least not because he'd feel the urge to do it) can not be seen as an intelectual.
On the other hand a cab driver who reads the classics in his free time (even if all from the library and doesn't own a book of his own) and saves up money so he can go and see that concert of the local philrharmonic orchestra (simply because he enjoys the music) would be an intelectual.[/quote]

I never thought of reading as something only intellectuals do (though it seems that way more and more now). Reading not only provides entertainment (if the book is good), but it also helps the reader improve their knowledge of the language they are reading and improves one's imagination. As one instructor of mine said: reading is writing backwards.

[omg]

excuse me, i wasnt aware that i was trolling did you even bother to read the third paragraph? as far as i am aware that was a *contribution*. the first paragraph wasnt actually aimed at you it was aimed at the general complaint of certain non native english speakers about slang. the second and third paragraphs were aimed at you. i am not a troll. i was not trying to be humorous i was making a statement.
so obviosly you didnt bother to read my whole post, just the first paragraph. ioronic really that you didnt read the whole thing ...

[Bobbin Threadbare]

I'm beginning to dislike this thread...
*prepares for a big flame*
I'm sorry but it's really starting to piss me off. :tai:

Originally posted by omg@Jul 10 2005, 11:19 AM
excuse me, i wasnt aware that i was trolling did you even bother to read the third paragraph? as far as i am aware that was a *contribution*. the first paragraph wasnt actually aimed at you it was aimed at the general complaint of certain non native english speakers about slang. the second and third paragraphs were aimed at you. i am not a troll. i was not trying to be humorous i was making a statement.
so obviosly you didnt bother to read my whole post, just the first paragraph. ioronic really that you didnt read the whole thing ...

As soon as I read the part where you assumed I made this post to mock people who don't read I disregarded the rest of your post. Your posts in general tend to add a negative air about the threads you post in, and often I get the impression you make unnecessarily rude statements out of habit. GameFAQs defines trolling as posts intended solely to annoy and/or offend other posters, and by making negative remarks you are, in fact, trolling.

Please stop posting here; I'd hate to see this thread ruined.

[A. J. Raffles]

Originally posted by Triton+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Triton)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I wasn't very clear on this.* Though the first use of the printing press was to print the Bible, the world was opened up to the ability to spread information of any kind quickly and easily.[/b]

It was, but the number of people who actually had access to that information was nevertheless quite limited. Just because the books were available, that doesn't mean that everybody was able to afford them, let alone read them; the great majority probably wasn't.
<!--QuoteBegin-Triton
Music and theater were around, but the music and scripts were not available to all conductors and players before the printing press was available, so culture only spread so far.* Besides, the ability to print sheets of music allowed for music to evolve more quickly by allowing the composer more time to write new music and experiment with new ideas instead of copying music by hand and paying amanuenses to help.* With the availability of written music and printed scripts, other bands in other parts of Europe could perform music written by different composers or play stories by different playwrights.[/quote]
Actually I wasn't thinking about the sort of music you would hear in a concert, but about something on a slightly smaller scale. Keep in mind that in the 15th century most people lived in the country, so there weren't that many concerts to go to anyway. They did, however, have access to music in the shape of folk songs and dances and the like. You don't need print sheets for that, and you don't need to be literate for it either.
Theatre would only have had any significance in large cities like London, of course, but even then companies often didn't work with printed scripts (plays were mostly printed after they had been successful on the stage), and not every actor was necessarily able to read.
About the spreading of music and plays: I'd say that until about the late 18th or early 19th century, travelling musicians and theatre companies probably played a larger role in spreading them than print sheets and scripts did. For example the 'Faust' story was at first almost entirely spread through such travelling companies.

[Microprose Veteran]

Hm. I don't dislike slang.

If chat-type is considered slang, then I will make an exception for that one.

[Playbahnosh]

Triton - OMG, Please stop! Don't give a reason to mods to close this topic, please!

@Triton

First of all, in my view OMG wasn't trolling or whatever, he just expressed his feeleings about this thread. Ya know, not only positive or supporting post allowed, I can't see it in the rules :wink:
The thing is, we need opinions from both sides. OMG is somebody who dislike reading deep books or don't really care about language. I personally have no problem with him becouse of this at all. We are all individualities, who have different qualities, and those qualities don't always match ya know. Respect each others individuality and opinion, that's all I ask k:

@OMG
Well, thats some viewpoint
I was, who stated that opinion about slang, sorry. I didn't meant to diss slangers, I just tryed to say, that more and more people know less and less words is their mother language. This causes that they won't read books, becouse they don't understand it. And many of them don't really have imagination(becouse of TV and things like that) so they cannot digest the contents of a deep book and understand what the author meant by writing it.
Mass media is good, becouse it entertains people, but it also makes them more and more rejective to deep, complicated entertaintment, like Freud, Hemmingway, Attila József or Asimov. These authors didn't written just words on a paper. They expressed feelings and complex thoughts and implemented it into their works. These works need to be "decoded", understanded before you can enjoy them, and many of the "TV lazy" people don't take the time for these kind of entertainments.

@all

Music is a great thing. Sound waves are strange things. It can couse unbearable pain and unbeliavable euphoria in one time. It depends on the point of view k: Let's take Heavy Metal. I presonally very like that kind of music. Hard, powerful instuments, high tempo, deep lyrics, deep thoughts. Many people don't even think of HM as music. They think it is a cacophonic noise made by drugged idiots. I think the same about rap, but I don't diss rappers about it. Acceptance is the key here Opinions differ, but I like that

[omg]

Originally posted by Playbahnosh@Jul 10 2005, 08:12 PM
Triton - OMG, Please stop! Don't give a reason to mods to close this topic, please!

@Triton

First of all, in my view OMG wasn't trolling or whatever, he just expressed his feeleings about this thread. Ya know, not only positive or supporting post allowed, I can't see it in the rules :wink:
The thing is, we need opinions from both sides. OMG is somebody who dislike reading deep books or don't really care about language. I personally have no problem with him becouse of this at all. We are all individualities, who have different qualities, and those qualities don't always match ya know. Respect each others individuality and opinion, that's all I ask k:

@OMG
Well, thats some viewpoint
I was, who stated that opinion about slang, sorry. I didn't meant to diss slangers, I just tryed to say, that more and more people know less and less words is their mother language. This causes that they won't read books, becouse they don't understand it. And many of them don't really have imagination(becouse of TV and things like that) so they cannot digest the contents of a deep book and understand what the author meant by writing it.
Mass media is good, becouse it entertains people, but it also makes them more and more rejective to deep, complicated entertaintment, like Freud, Hemmingway, Attila József or Asimov. These authors didn't written just words on a paper. They expressed feelings and complex thoughts and implemented it into their works. These works need to be "decoded", understanded before you can enjoy them, and many of the "TV lazy" people don't take the time for these kind of entertainments.

@all

Music is a great thing. Sound waves are strange things. It can couse unbearable pain and unbeliavable euphoria in one time. It depends on the point of view k: Let's take Heavy Metal. I presonally very like that kind of music. Hard, powerful instuments, high tempo, deep lyrics, deep thoughts. Many people don't even think of HM as music. They think it is a cacophonic noise made by drugged idiots. I think the same about rap, but I don't diss rappers about it. Acceptance is the key here Opinions differ, but I like that

litriture?

ok. cool. my fave book is probably auldus huxleys brave new world. which has the level of a dosed up society that work like drones in a big hive. it predicted what we have now.

modern?
but evrything douglas adams wrote was genius, when gibson was into cables adams had wireless networking. i think that our generation has produced a lot of litriture. what about hawkins?

what about irvine welsh

i think a long time has to pass before we consider something litriture. i think frank herberts dune is litriture, but i wonder why trainspotting isnt. lord of the rings is becoming litrituire, and is studyed in some places innit. what about the the happy policeman

peace k:

[Iron_Scarecrow]

I'm sorry about this but it's spelt literature. I'm used to people with bad spelling and grammar, but this one was really painful to read. I hope this doesn't offend you.