Now the main point of the post. (Not that the thanks weren't important.)
I find it disturbing that language isn't what it used to be. People have smaller vocabularies and some have lots of bad grammar to go with that. At least, institutions should ensure they use good English. I hate seeing language mistakes in notes, whether they be science or maths and in the very rare case, literature (which i will give the benefit of the doubt to and blame typing, because literature teachers speak well and have never given reason to doubt their language abilities). Sentences become shorter, because research shows that humans lose their attention span if faced with a block of words. And so, many keeps their sentences short and their syntax simple, so that the poor reader will not feel discouraged. All this is fine, but it should not be forgotten that there still are people who revel in classics by the Romantics, like works of Austen and Dickens, and that there is a beauty in the way paragraph-long sentences fall into place perfectly. Perhaps long sentences and difficult words don't go well with the masses, but a complete rejection of this style is uncalled for.
Another disappointing situation I find myself in very often is that of using modern connotations on classic novels or poems.
Remember this rhyme?-
Monday's child is fair of face,
Tuesday's child is full of grace.
Wednesday's child is full of woe,
Thursday's child has far to go.
Friday's child is loving and giving,
Saturday's child works hard for a living.
But the child that is born on the Sabbath day
Is bonny and blithe and good and gay.
Due to alterations in the meaning of certain words, which is inevitable, no child born on Wednesday or Sunday, for example, would like this poem very much. However, instead of changing the verses, to suit modern times, which has been done, the rhyme should be appreciated for it's original meaning. "Wednesday's child is full of woe" intended to say that a child born on Wednesday is serious, not sad, and Sunday's child is, as you know, happy. To change the verses of the rhyme will result in original meanings being lost forever.
Also, people should definitely be aware of modern connotations, but these should not be used in every situation. I dare not use the word"gay" in anything I write to signify happiness, because of immediate misunderstandings. And while certain authors purposely intend for modern connotations to be used on their works, a reader should be discerning enough to pick out the most appropriate meaning in each situation, and not, for example, give sexual connotations to everything they read. Though I almost have to agree with Mr Harris (literature teacher) when he says "If you see it (a sexual connotation), it's there," while we analyse The Duchess of Malfi by John Webster. Webster and Shakespeare were contemporaries, by the way. But that's different. Those authors WANT readers to pick up on the connotations to contrast different characters' values and feelings.
Perhaps this is just the playfulness of adolescent readers.
It's sad to see people dismiss classics as not being an accurate representation of the lives we lead. Fairytale endings are rejected as being improbable. [Interestingly, did you know that fairytales were originally written for adults? When children started reading them, they had to change the stories so that they were more suitable. (Which is fine because their innocence had to be protected.) I remember reading that Rapunzel gave her secret away not because she compared the witch's weight on her hair to the prince's, but because she asked the witch why her stomach was growing bigger. And the twins she gives birth to just disappear. In fact, I didn't even know she gave birth until I read that article. Which I came across while researching for KI.] Perhaps life isn't as ideal as fairytales say it is, but a deconstruction leaves us with a bleak landscape. Are we now better off than when we started?
This is an interesting piece of prose by Margaret Atwood, There Was Once.
"There was once a poor girl, as beautiful as she was good, who lived with her wicked stepmother in a house in the forest."
"Forest? Forest is passé, I mean, I've had it with all this wilderness stuff. It's not a right image of our society, today. Let's have some urban for a change."
"There was once a poor girl, as beautiful as she was good, who lived with her wicked stepmother in a house in the suburbs."
"That's better. But I have to seriously query this word poor."
"But she was poor!"
"Poor is relative. She lived in a house, didn't she?"
"Yes."
"Then socio-economically speaking, she was not poor."
"But none of the money was hers! The whole point of the story is that the wicked stepmother makes her wear old clothes and sleep in the fireplace-"
"Aha! They had a fireplace! With poor, let me tell you, there's no fireplace. Come down to the park, come to the subway stations after dark, come down to where they sleep in cardboard boxes, and I'll show you poor!"
"There was once a middle-class girl, as beautiful as she was good-"
"Stop right there. I think we can cut the beautiful, don't you? Women these days have to deal with too many intimidating physical role models as it is, what with those bimbos in the ads. Can't you make her, well, more average?"
"There was once a girl who was a little overweight and whose front teeth stuck out, who-"
"I don't think it's nice to make fun of people's appearances. Plus, you're encouraging anorexia."
"I wasn't making fun! I was just describing-"
"Skip the description. Description oppresses. But you can say what colour she was."
"What colour?"
"You know. Black, white, red, brown, yellow. Those are the choices. And I'm telling you right now, I've had enough of white. Dominant culture this, dominant culture that-"
"I don't know what colour."
"Well, it would probably be your colour, wouldn't it?"
"But this isn't about me! It's about this girl-"
"Everything is about you."
"Sounds to me like you don't want to hear this story at all."
"Oh well, go on. You could make her ethnic. That might help."
"There was once a girl of indeterminate descent, as average-looking as she was good, who lived with her wicked-"
"Another thing. Good and wicked. Don't you think you should transcend those puritanical judgmental moralistic epithets? I mean, so much of that is conditioning, isn't it?"
"There was once a girl, as average-looking as she was well-adjusted, who lived with her stepmother, who was not a very open and loving person because she herself had been abused in childhood."
"Better. But I am so tired of negative female images! And stepmothers-they always get it in the neck! Change it to stepfather, why don't you? That would make more sense anyway, considering the bad behaviour you're about to describe. And throw in some whips and chains. We all know what those twisted, repressed, middle-aged men are like-"
"Hey, just a minute! I'm a middle-aged-"
"Stuff it, Mister Nosy Parker. Nobody asked you to stick in your oar, or whatever you want to call that thing. This is between the two of us. Go on."
"There was once a girl-"
"How old was she?"
"I don't know. She was young."
"This ends with a marriage, right?"
"Well, not to blow the plot, but-yes."
"Then you can scratch the condescending paternalistic terminology. It's woman, pal. Woman."
"There was once-"
"What's this was, once? Enough of the dead past. Tell me about now."
"There-"
"So?"
"So, what?"
"So, why not here?"
Interesting, no?
Perhaps classical writers were under the illusion that all's well. But aren't we sometimes under the illusion that nothing's well?
