The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: catskincatskin
About
User Name: catskincatskin
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests:
Gender: Male
Home Page http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
Statistics
Joined: Thursday, March 19, 2009
Last Visit: Sunday, April 10, 2011 5:21:38 PM
Number of Posts: 87
[0.01% of all post / 0.02 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: I don't want to be seeming to be arguing
Posted: Sunday, March 6, 2011 12:17:31 PM
It's correct grammatically. Thar's sounds more "normal". As for other situations, consider:

I don't want to be thinking that you are lying.
I don't want to be pretending that I'm staying.
He didn't want it seeming like he was faking.
She wanted to be singing while he was climaxing.

Etc. etc.
Topic: The Velocity of Life (And How to Fight It Through Close Reading)
Posted: Monday, May 4, 2009 4:36:04 PM
fred wrote:
catskincatskin wrote:
...how/why/what language and synatx... make the experience of reading personal.



Why do you think this happens?
Usually the author's writing is writ specifically for that kind of reading.


Why do I think close reading makes the experience of reading personal? There are a lot of reasons, but the key is probably that it ignores historical, sociological, biographical, etc. contexts. In other words, in the way that I was taught to do close reading, you read the piece and consider it based on your own relationship with what's on the page--language and syntax and structure. In a way, it encourages misreading the author's intentions, makes a definite meaning ambiguous, and allows for multiple meanings to arise from a piece seeing as each individual reader brings a different background to the reading.

I'm not sure why you think that usually an author writes specifically for that kind of reading. The notion of close reading is fairly modern, related to the democratization of education and different (some would say lower) standards of education. It assumes that anyone can read a poem or novel and "understand" it without much prior knowledge. It might be helpful to think of it in terms of Christianity and the rise of "personal" interpretations of the Bible. More and more no authority, certainly not a saint or an author, not even a biblical scholar, is needed in order for one to have a (personal) understanding of the key texts. That's a fairly recent phenomenon. But in the end, I guess, close reading tends to get rid of any anxiety about the author's intentions and whether or not you're understanding them. If you understand what Emily Dickinson was trying to say, then you might very well be the only one, but other people will enjoy--or hate--her poetry anyway.

Topic: The Velocity of Life (And How to Fight It Through Close Reading)
Posted: Monday, May 4, 2009 2:23:21 PM
I prefer to do "close reading" when reading creative or imaginative writing. When reading for facts or information, it's not that useful for me. My goal in close reading is not so much to get at the author's intention as it is to observe and become conscious of how/why/what language and synatx is doing. In academic settings, at least as I learned it, close reading was developed as an alternative to historical or biographical understandings of works and as a way to make the experience of reading personal.

As far as re-reading a book once a year or skimming as much as possible, it seems like the old question of "quality vs. quantity." I'd rather have quality, personally. I guess it comes down to why one is reading in the first place. When I think of this question in parallel situations (such as, listen to one song I like over and over or a bunch of songs I think are mediocre, sleep with one person I adore or as many people I think are OK as possible, eat what I enjoy or as many dishes as possible) I fall pretty consistently on the side of doing a few things I like rather than a lot of things I feel lukewarm about. I don't think one way is better than another though.
Topic: oriental-- a derogatory term ?
Posted: Sunday, May 3, 2009 9:48:45 PM
prolixitysquared wrote:
You mentioned the term being offense in the northeastern part of our country. May I ask where exactly you know this is true, in terms of specific regions ? I'm in Pennsylvania outside of Philadelphia, so I'm going to assume that's included too, given my experience.


Well, it's not like it comes up a lot and it's not like I'm an expert. My experience has been in NY and MA. I first learned that "oriental" was considered derogatory in Annadale-on-Hudson (in NY) quite a while ago, like 1994. It has since been confirmed in awkward moments in a few settings both in NY and MA--confirmed in the sense that people have publicly taken issue with the use of the term as racist and offensive, but mostly just by its absence.
Topic: Possesive Usage Help, mosts
Posted: Sunday, May 3, 2009 6:15:07 PM
Epiphileon wrote:
Hi all, little help please,
"my approach to statistics in psychology was much more critical than mosts."
Can mosts, be used in this way, is there another way to say this?
Firefox spell check indicates no apostrophe.



"Most" doesn't need to be possessive here. It's an adjective. Only nouns can be possessive. "Most" here means "most approaches." So I'd go with the suggestion above: "... much more critical than most."


I've never seen the word "mosts" before.
Topic: Musical Theater
Posted: Sunday, May 3, 2009 5:14:09 PM
risadr wrote:
There's a thread about book-to-film conversions, but what about book-to-theater conversions? Has anyone seen the musical version of Gregory Maguire's Wicked? I've heard nothing but good things about it, but those reviews are coming mostly from my friends who are fans of musical theater, in general, and I wonder how true to the novel the musical stayed.

What other musicals have been based on books?


I saw Wicked with Kristin Chenowith as Glinda and Idina Menzel as Elphaba. I loved it very much. I could go on and on and on about why. As far as the relationship to the book, well, the Broadway show's a musical. Maguire's novel was told in a serious tone that made it clear from page one that this wasn't an Oz for children. The musical version tones that down by making Glinda as prominent a character as Elphaba (unlike in the book). The Glinda I saw (Kristin Chenowith) was super cute and perky, making a fun odd-couple type of dynamic with Elphaba that the book didn't have. The major complaint I've heard about it is that Glinda's perkiness is annoying. If you like the soundtrack (I do) and the novel (I do) then I think you'll love Wicked.

Phantom of the Opera is another musical based on a book. Cats is based on poems by T.S. Eliot. Cabaret is based on an Isherwood short story (I think... I might have that wrong, someone's short story). West Side Story is based on Romeo and Juliet. Kiss of the Spider Woman is based on a novel by Manuel Puig. Lots more I'm sure!
Topic: asleep and sleeping what is the difference, sorrry
Posted: Sunday, May 3, 2009 1:59:57 AM
JJ wrote:
I'm sorry don't mean to sound dumb but what is the difference? Trying to write a sentence and this is driving me crazy.


One difference is that "asleep" is almost always an adjective. The only exception I can think of is when it's used with "fell asleep," in which case it's an adverb.

Sleeping is much more versatile. It's both a noun and an adjective. So you could write, "Sleeping is fun." But not, "Asleep is fun." "Sleeping" is grammatically the same as both "asleep" and the noun "sleep" (but not the verb, "to sleep").

As far as the sentence you're trying to write, unless you're using the phrase "fell asleep," it's safer to go with "sleeping."
Topic: Help! "Down by the"
Posted: Saturday, May 2, 2009 8:06:36 PM
It doesn't necessarily mean a place lower than where the observer is. The word "down" here can be used to simply mean that the Salley Gardens are not where the speaker is currently. Also, the phrases "down by" or "down at" suggests familiarity ("down at the old ball park," for example).
Topic: oriental-- a derogatory term ?
Posted: Saturday, May 2, 2009 3:35:08 PM
fred wrote:
catskincatskin wrote:
fred wrote:

The English language should not be held hostage by foreigners.


What does this mean?



It's meaning is durogattory.


Huh. Okay. Initially I thought you were saying that you think it is an act of terrorism when someone expresses offense at a term like "oriental." Since that's not so much derogatory as severe paranoia, I guess I was wrong.

Topic: oriental-- a derogatory term ?
Posted: Saturday, May 2, 2009 9:47:34 AM
fred wrote:

The English language should not be held hostage by foreigners.


What does this mean?

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.