/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11377527]

I was reading the Bible and at Matthew 9 12

,,But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.''

The way Jesus responds is incredible and I would like to learn to speak the way he was speaking, not with abstract words, but with a parable, analogy, simile, metaphor, metonymy. I like the way Shakespeare characters are speaking or how G.K. Chesterton is writing making his point or The Beauties of Shakespeare by Dodd William Rev were that way of talking is present and I wonder if there is a book that can teach me this kind of way to talk?

[Anonymous No.11377533]

>>11377527
>I would like to learn to speak the way he was speaking
step 1: be son of god

[Anonymous No.11377542]

Have you read Chesterton's "Heretics" yet? I think I know what you're talking about, and I think his brand of philosophy will serve to enlighten you. No matter what, please understand that you're on the right track. God be with you.

[Anonymous No.11377559]

>>11377533
It's not that, but speaking while using similes or analogies or metaphors, making a point while talking about another thing ilustrating an image

[Anonymous No.11377576]

>>11377542
Thanks I will read it

[Anonymous No.11377954]

>>11377527
>but with a parable, analogy, simile, metaphor, metonymy
Why would you want to? Everyone will think you are a complete asshole.

[Anonymous No.11378006]

nietzsche's styleguide, given to lou salome, and which he probably had in mind for zarathustra

1. Of prime necessity is life: a style should live.
2. Style should be suited to the specific person with whom you wish to communicate. (The law of mutual relation.)
3. First, one must determine precisely “what-and-what do I wish to say and present,” before you may write. Writing must be mimicry.
4. Since the writer lacks many of the speaker’s means, he must in general have for his model a very expressive kind of presentation of necessity, the written copy will appear much paler.
5. The richness of life reveals itself through a richness of gestures. One must learn to feel everything — the length and retarding of sentences, interpunctuations, the choice of words, the pausing, the sequence of arguments — like gestures.
6. Be careful with periods! Only those people who also have long duration of breath while speaking are entitled to periods. With most people, the period is a matter of affectation.
7. Style ought to prove that one believes in an idea; not only that one thinks it but also feels it.
8. The more abstract a truth which one wishes to teach, the more one must first entice the senses.
9. Strategy on the part of the good writer of prose consists of choosing his means for stepping close to poetry but never stepping into it.
10. It is not good manners or clever to deprive one’s reader of the most obvious objections. It is very good manners and very clever to leave it to one’s reader alone to pronounce the ultimate quintessence of our wisdom.

[Anonymous No.11378013]

>>11377954
>Why would you want to? Everyone will think you are a complete asshole.

But every educated person knows Shakespeare is a genius, and he uses figures of speech all the time.

[Anonymous No.11378066]

>>11378013
Yea, Shakespeare wrote plays 400 years ago. As I said you are going to sound like an asshole.

[Anonymous No.11378196]

>>11377954
This, sadly.

[Anonymous No.11378210]

>>11377527
>GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME IM NOT WHOLE GIMME GIMME GIMME GOD WHY AM I NOT WHOLE GIMME GIMME GIMME I WANT HIS PERSONALITY GIMME GIMME GIMME I WANT IT NOW GIMME GIMME GIMME IM NOT WHOLE OH GOD IM NOT WHOLE GIMME GIMME GIMME I WANT HIS FRIENDS HIS STYLE HIS WORDS HIS GF HIS DICK HIS FACE GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME

[Anonymous No.11378659]

>>11378066

You can write plays today with the same poetic language (of course, with modern day subjects for metaphors and similes, and modern day vocabulary) and it would be great.

It's stupid to pretend that some people can go for the greatest summits of language while others can’t just because they were born in different time periods. To hell with Hemingway and journalistic style prose. If you write for the theater you can dare much more than any TV or movie writer: it’s a more ear-medium than eye-medium.

[Anonymous No.11378668]

>>11378659

Please, note I said "write plays", or even novels. I don't mean that Anon should get out there speaking like a Shakespearean character in real life. Nobody spoke like that, not even Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.11379056]

>>11378668
Nobody spoke like that, not even Shakespeare.

But everybody should

[Anonymous No.11379230]

>>11378659
>>11378668
>>11379056

If the gods were real they would speak like Shakespeare's characters.

[Anonymous No.11379328]

>>11378013
>But every educated person knows Shakespeare is a genius
And you're not
>and he uses figures of speech all the time
All the time in his 400-year-old tragedies and poems.

>>11378659
>You can write plays today with the same poetic language
>it’s a more ear-medium than eye-medium
When was the last time you went to a theater?

>>11379056
If everyone could speak like Shakespeare's characters, why would you read him, you pseud idiot?

[Anonymous No.11379367]

>>11379328
There's nothing wrong with improving your speech and using proper grammar whilst doing so. Those that matter will appreciate it. I think any honest individual is slightly disgusted when they hear English butchered through ebonics or similar dialects/slangs. As for the use of parables or similes, they will come naturally to those who are well read. There is also a time and place for their use. No one is saying he should speak like Shakespeare but there is no reason to further denigrate our language.

[Anonymous No.11379383]

>>11379328
>When was the last time you went to a theater?

I don't care with what people do there. If someone is capable of doing the same as Shakespeare this person is superior to all modern playwrights.

I'm not asking a looser like you to do it.

[Anonymous No.11379395]

>>11379328
>When was the last time you went to a theater?

There is an anon that posts speeches of his poetic plays in the critique threds that could very well produce a contemporary play of great artistic quality.

The bits I read are much more exciting than anything in David Mamet

>>11379328
>And you're not

You don't know the guy to say that. And if there is someone who is a genius in the art of literature that someone is Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.11379429]

>>11379367
>There's nothing wrong with improving your speech and using proper grammar whilst doing so
Speaking like Shakespeare isn't just "using proper grammar" or "improving your speech". Practical communication is meant to be efficient.

>No one is saying he should speak like Shakespeare
>>11379056

>I think any honest individual is slightly disgusted when they hear English butchered through ebonics or similar dialects/slangs
lol ok

>>11379383
In the first post of yours that I replied to you wrote nonsense that only someone who very rarely or never goes to the theater. Now you're spouting incoherencies.

>>11379395
>And if there is someone who is a genius in the art of literature that someone is Shakespeare
Are you on drugs? What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

[Anonymous No.11379566]

>>11379429
>Practical communication is meant to be efficient.
Well you'd be surprised, the vast majority of people don't speak anything close to properly or what you might call the Queen's English. I don't know what you mean by practical either, as conversations between friends aren't as practical as military communications. Although OP's question is sort of stupid and naive, I can see what he's getting at. He shouldn't really worry about it as it is the sort of thing that comes naturally with education and reading.

I don't know what you're trying to say with the 2nd part of your post. I don't know why you're even on /lit/ if you aren't disgusted by the butchering of languages through "dialects" like ebonics. It's the most prevalent form of anti intellectualism.

[Anonymous No.11379690]

>>11379566
>Well you'd be surprised, the vast majority of people don't speak anything close to properly or what you might call the Queen's English
No need to be this condescending. Nobody except professors speaks the made-up standard languages, anywhere.
>I don't know what you mean by practical either, as conversations between friends aren't as practical as military communications
When I say practical, I mean that it conveys info quickly, efficiently and precisely. Shakespeare is an artist, so he's not bound by such stuff, you could reread his monologues endlessly to find new meanings and subtleties in them. Why would you have to do that in casual discussions?

>He shouldn't really worry about it as it is the sort of thing that comes naturally with education and reading.
I agree, it shouldn't be forced.

>I don't know why you're even on /lit
Because I've been reading classic and modern literature intensely for the last ~5 years.
But I guess the actual reason to post here is to be a linguistic elitist :^)

[Anonymous No.11379693]

>>11377527
Jesus didn't speak that way, decades after his death some guy wrote that Jesus spoke that way.

[Anonymous No.11379798]

>>11379693
Whoa, dude... So, the thing we understand by Jesus, the thing the word Jesus signifies, the thing by the name Jesus in the Testaments, didn't speak like Jesus because another Jesus, off to the side, on which the Jesus we understand was based? Dude... How'd you get so insightful? I'm blown away. This post isn't even written how you think it's written. It's written how I wrote it. Uhhhhh, dude? Imbecile.

[Anonymous No.11379810]

>>11379798

Calm down, Christ-cuck. Nobody wants to discuss your fairy tales.

[Anonymous No.11379819]

>>11379690
>Because I've been reading classic and modern literature intensely for the last ~5 years.
If you value these things, you should loathe the destruction of language and the lack of importance placed upon literature/culture/etc in society that comes along with it. Not necessarily what OP is talking about, but it's along the same lines. People used to speak and behave with far greater civility and relative eloquence, even the less educated.

[Anonymous No.11379828]

>Calm down, Christ-cuck. Nobody wants to discuss your fairy tales.

[Anonymous No.11379872]

>>11379828

Ok, we are all fedoras here, haha.

Now go suck your pastors cock and fuck off from this thread.

[Anonymous No.11379920]

>>11379693
>>11379810
>>11379872
[fedora tipping intensifies]

[Anonymous No.11379943]

>Now go suck your pastors cock and fuck off from this thread.

[Anonymous No.11379951]

>>11379819
>the destruction of language
Come the fuck on, m8. Every era had its language destroyed, raped etc. It's fearmongering. Ebonics have existed for centuries, dialects since forever. A "proper" national language is a relatively modern invention.
>People used to speak and behave with far greater civility and relative eloquence, even the less educated
I wonder, how do you know that? (pro tip: simply using archaic words=eloquence)

[Anonymous No.11379967]

This is to the fedora tippers, since I feel genuinely bad for them: Read Montaigne's thoughts on religion, it might help you understand why people who don't believe in the church as an organization or in the metaphysics of religion would still believe in Christianity or any other religion for that matter.

[Anonymous No.11379979]

>>11379951
>I wonder, how do you know that? (pro tip: simply using archaic words=eloquence)
Well in my country, the UK, it has come as a direct result of the destruction of rigorous education. Every child once knew a large number of beautiful hymns and passages by heart. Every child read the great works of Shakespeare and Chaucer, the poems of Keats and Wordsworth even before University. This directly translated into large and rich vocabularies, and the ability to express oneself eloquently. It was even available to the lower classes through grammar schools, which have largely been destroyed. Now if you want a decent education for your child you have to pay large sums. Dialects have existed, sure, but for a time we in Britain had a beautiful standard for our language. We did not seek to dumb it down or destroy it through our education as we do now.

[Anonymous No.11380004]

>>11379967

There might be some sort of god, or divinity, or spirit of nature, or primal cause, or first mover, something that we don’t even have the organic capacity to understand (just like a cow don’t have the brain structure to understand calculus).

However, it’s certain that no human being has ever seen, heard or witnessed such God, and all the religious texts in all traditions show errors and limitations of knowledge characteristic of the time they were written. The major results obtained in several fields of scientific endeavor have disproved all faiths, and Christianity is no exception.

There still might be a God, but nobody has ever contemplated it. And life after death hasn’t anything to do with the possibility of existence of such divine force. This is: there is no life after death.

A single argument that destroys most religions, and Christianity among them, is the fact of natural selection. Might some form of God still exist? Yes. Does it have anything to do with Christ and the Bible? Certainly no.

[Anonymous No.11380009]

>>11379979
So you don't have any actual proof of people using those supposedly vast vocabularies or being very nice and civil. I'm not really surprised.
In my country we still have grammar schools and learn important passages from national epics by heart. Yet, everyone's again speaking modern dialects and adapting foreign words and the linguists are still crying and bitching about the destruction of our language (while ignoring the fact that the standardization is homogenizing and erasing older local dialects from rural areas).

[Anonymous No.11380076]

>>11380009
>So you don't have any actual proof of people using those supposedly vast vocabularies or being very nice and civil. I'm not really surprised.
? Do I need to quote primary sources or a social history book here? It's not hard to find one. You seriously don't have the brain capacity to understand that people were once better educated? And that they used these vocabularies for not only daily conversation but for tasks such as writing letters? Have you ever spoken with individuals born in the early 20th century? Have you watched interviews from the 50s? I find it hard that you cannot see the link between the abolition of rigorous education and the decline in standards of language. As for the civil part, how can you even say that when one can be verbally assaulted for expressing their political opinions by even the most seemingly nice people? Or the fact that very little people in my country even have basic manners, such as saying thank you or please, let alone holding doors open for people or giving up their seats? This is pushing aside all of the nonsense ebonics which increasingly even white youth in my country seem to adapt. It's hardly even english.

>In my country we still have grammar schools and learn important passages from national epics by heart.
I'm glad to hear that for it is certainly not the case in the UK, far from it actually, pretty much all learning by heart has been abolished in all but the expensive private schools. Poetry as well is barely taught.