is there any other way to interpret the end of “now you know“ where we end the whole act on her shouting “I love you Frank” paired with the company saying “now you know”? I feel like it adds a new dimension to how complacent they’ve gotten in their friendships that Frank is actively aware that Mary’s in love with him and just chooses to ignore that for his own comfort.
when I found out about this show it was already off, are there any rumblings of a proshot or any other way to watch it?
Im a massive fan of company 2011, but all the reviews were saying that raul esparza was a better Bobby (i agree that NPH is kinda weak) so i decided to watch it, and was kinda struggling. I think having the actors play instruments never felt like a real choice and always felt like a gimmick, as well as the costuming being really bland and making it far harder to keep track of the large cast. as well as this I think the supporting cast for the 2006 version are far worse than the 2011 version - in that version every supporting character feels perfectly in character all the time, and I think the difference in Peters is quite stark. I get the 2011 version is a little more clownish than the “serious” 2006 version, but am I missing something which makes people feel its a better production of company?
No disrespect intended to the show or the production.
I was apprehensive about watching the second act of Sunday in the park with George because I’d heard it was “unsalvagable” but I actually really loved it. I think it’s like the second act of Into the woods (though not as good) where it’s not necessarily better than the first act but without it the first act stands a little shallow. I was really impressed with how Mandy Patinkin played a completely different character and also with Sondheim‘s trademark nuance, making what seemed to be a lazy jab at modern art into a really interesting piece of commentary. I liked how Act 1’s George was completely original and asocial, the platonic ideal of an ”artist”, while Act 2’s was more modern and realistic, struggling with a lot more self doubt. I didnt really get the ending but it wasn’t the train wreck people made it out to be,
the Greek diphthong “Eu” appears in Latin and I don’t know how to scan it. is it one syllable or two - does it count as long like “ae“ is or short like “iu” is, and does it elide?
for context im mainly talking about it at the start of words (eurypylus, eurus, europa etc)
disclaimer - I am aware that modern concepts of morality are slightly anachronistic when placed into the times of Homer and that his works are often more about the power of strong men rather than idolising them particularly
HOWEVER
The Greeks are like comically evil? They siege Troy and bicker while the Trojans sit and care Piously for their families. even if you take the idea that Helen was kidnapped, that doesn’t justify the amount of sexual assault committed atwinst Trojan women during the sack of Troy.
also Priam is so nice, and Hector is super honourable. Literally the only bad Trojan is Paris as Opposed to Ajax the asshole, Achilles the lazy bum, agamemnon the warmonger.
Did the Greeks even like the Greeks in Homer? Why did Homer make his side a bunch of man children obsessed with slavery and the enemy side a bunch of caring family men who are simply defending themselves from a siege? Is he stupid?
(I know he’s not stupid satire satire satire don’t attack me)
ignore the stories, who has better technical poetry line by line?
forgive me if I’m ignorant, as I’m not really a classicist, but I wonder if people confuse him with Shakespeare (who was meant to be understood by all people) since didnt Homer speak in his own constructed dialect? I thought Homer was supposed to be intentionally archaic even for his own time? Could normal people genuinely understand his works like common speech or did they need to parse his dense language to get at the meaning?
he’s a Trojan, and it’s written in Latin, so why is our Roman hero declining greekly? espexially when other Trojans like Hector or Priamus decline according to common Latin declensions.
Aenea -s, -n, -e ETC ETC
I’ve made a small companion, mainly for my own use, for the opening of Aeneid 1. all I’ve done is rearranged the word into a more traditional order and grouped agreeing words but I find reading this alongside the original text helps you understand the weird word order. if it’s helpful for any of uou I’ll drop it in the top comment.
What? Does the thrill of 8 gold stake antes not satiate you? We have channels for that:
Baron
Mime
Idol (Well, up to a point)
Those aren't enough for you? You've gotten bored of our conventional gamebreaking? You want, what, replayability? How dare you. You almost let Chicot hear you imply that the game could possibly use one more endless strategy! Play gold stake until ante 8 and enjoy it, you sicko!
how come Virgil must always change the “es” ending to “is“. is this a scribal tradition or shorthand or did he genuinely never differentiate them?
also I hate to bring scansion into it but the line “constitit atque oculis phrygia agmina circumspexit” takes some liberties with teading both “circ“ and “cumsp” as short vowels to fit the traditionally dactylic fifth foot structure, possibly the two most unequivocally long by position vowels I’ve ever seen
EDIT - I know now about the spondaic line, please elucidate why Virgil uses the I stem accusative plural thing
Its like an AI following the rhythms and semantic field of powerful speeches vaguely collected during some slack jawed gestation period from 2 to 5 years old before these fandom asses lost their curiosity and spitting out a facsimile of language. It’s like that (Italian?) Pop song where the guy made the lyrics sound like English, but not even a catchy tune to go with the silence as you’re left awestruck by the most basic shower thought. And then people act like they’ve heard some raw quote or worse, some actual wisdom, when half the time it’s the Gen Z equivalent of a “hang in there” cat poster. and the themes are always basic basic shit that everyone except the depressed circle-jerkers understand with vague references to divine fate (my life is NOT in my own control so DONT say it is) or references to “wounds” “fighting” and “survival” like they’ve been at war. dont piss me off again.
infinite monkeys don’t write hamlet. they shit and they eat it too, and sometimes they eat their young.
"custodes sufferre valent; labat ariete crebro"
This line occurs at the point in which Pyrrhus first makes his way into the royal palace. All other lines around it seem perfectly scannable except this one.
No elisions in the line.
The syllable count is 16. This means its gotta be very dactylic. But every scan I do of it comes one syllable short
Because of the hexameter ending we can safely conclude this line ends with "RI-e-te, CRE-BRO" dactyl and spondee (or anceps) pair
That leaves us with "Custodes sufferre valent labat a"
Cust is long by position, as are "es s", "suff", "err" and "ent"
If "cust" is long and "es s" is long then "od" must be long due to breves coming in pairs, meaning that we start with a spondee "CUST-OD"
From there my best guess would be "ES - SUFF, ERR-e-va, LENT-la-bat" but that leaves the "a" unaccounted for, and unable to be elided as it has consonants on each side
Whichever way you slice it, this line can't be scanned.
Humble me, latin reddit, show me what I'm missing
EXTENSION: (SOLVED)
vidi Hecubam centumque nurus Priamumque per aras
Bonus points if you can scan this one ^^^^, syllable wise at 17 it should be completely dactylic other than its ending spondee, when it clearly isn't? Did vergil just get sloppy half way through book 2? I hope he realised he had 10 other books to write
J. Cole: The Fall-Off Album Interview at Home in Fayetteville | Apple Music
I've been watching the fall off interview since I loved the album, and it really struck me his focus on being his own favourite rapper.
I genuinely think that type of egotism is healthy for people. I think you can only live life well if you respect your own life enough to love living as yourself and to love the things you create. I personally have a lot of songs I write or stories which I worry myself to death over how to show or explain to others, but I feel like I'm only ever at peace when I accept that the most important person I can impress is myself.
I think his reflection on listening to your own music like its someone else's is so key. Unhealthy egotism is treating yourself as special only due to the fact that its you. Healthy egotism is forgetting that "you" is equivalent to "yourself" and seeing yourself as if seeing a stranger, and loving that stranger.
Before you ask, yes I'm riding on that Jick, yes I'm glazing, yes I, no, WE, have no life.
Hamlet - Christopher Plummer - Michael Caine - Donald Sutherland - 1964 - Multiple Subtitles - 4K
Personally I find its a bit overacted at times but the sets and costumes are a nice contrast to the very minimal Hamlets which we see often nowadays. Its a good complement to a more modern production imo.
While most people who read Hamlet equate Shakespeare's Denmark as a thinly veiled analogue to Elizabethan England, especially Oxfordians who equate Polonius with Lord Burghley, I was struck recently by considering the differences between Shakespeare's Denmark and the England he lived in.
The main thing that interests me is that Shakespeare imagines Denmark as globalised and lacking a central identity, which I assume would've contrasted with England's intense patriotism at the time and its isolationism from the rest of Europe. We see this through Hamlet basically living in Germany and Laertes living in France, Claudius using swiss mercenaries and never native soldiers [where are my switzers?], or the way that the norwegians march through denmark to Poland. I suppose my question is to any historians, is Shakespeare making some critique of Europe here? At his time was England isolationist with a hereditary monarchy that could contrast with the weak state of Denmark, where kings are chosen by lot and all the important people seem to want to be away from Denmark as much as possible, or was England more of a player in Europe than I thought it would be.
I rarely see Denmark as a state very emeshed in the politics of Europe being discussed. Is there any historical merit to this idea? Personally I believe that Shakespeare is critiquing the excesses of English monarchy at many points in the play, but using a state shown to be unpatriotic and opportunistic which lacks a great chain of being type succession in order to not appear like he's critiquing monarchy itself.
Why should a well-educated young man have second thoughts when it comes to killing a close relative who also happens to be the king of the land and the husband of his own mother? This is some enigma indeed, and the problem is not that a satisfactory answer has never been found but that we should keep looking for one. Should our enormous critical literature on Hamlet fall someday into the hands of people otherwise ignorant of our mores, they could not fail to conclude that our academic tribe must have been a savage breed, indeed. After four centuries of controversies, Hamlet's temporary reluctance to commit murder still looks so outlandish to us that more and more books are being written in an unsuccessful effort to solve that mystery. The only way to account for this curious body of literature is to suppose that back in the twentieth century no more was needed than the request of some ghost, and the average professor of literature would massacre his entire household without batting an eyelash. - Amir Khan
