- ... on ... Ohh, well then. Isn t this delicious. Thanks. ... one s ... thing ... pencil. ... at ... my ... timing, ... Well.... yes... You lay down on theMessage 1 of 2 , Dec 2, 2004View Source
> [Original Message]on
> From: David Bratman <dbratman@...>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Date: 12/2/2004 11:14:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [mythsoc] reading aloud (was A Tale of Two Professors)
> At 09:12 AM 12/2/2004 -0500, Lizzie wrote:
> >You mean, reading it aloud oneself? In that case, is one reading to hear
> >one's voice speak the poem, or reading to feel the taste of the language
> >one's tongue?Ohh, well then. Isn't this delicious. Thanks.
> Mostly the latter. That's why it's reading, not listening, that makes
> poetry. And if you are listening, the poet is not necessarily the best
> reader of his work, any more than the composer is necessarily the best
> conductor: they're different talents.
> >To read silently as if one were reading aloud is, for me, just the matter
> >of reading a bit more slowly, and listening to the words drop through my
> >head. It is easier than reading aloud, in that it is not hindered by
> >vocal qualities (or lack thereof). It is a little like envisioning athing
> >you want to draw -- which is not so difficult until one picks up thepencil.
> I don't think that reading silently slowly is the same as reading aloud,
> least not for me or, I think, for most people. It's hard to keep frommy
> speeding up, and silent reading doesn't convey the sense of vocalization.
> Even subvocalization isn't the same thing as reading aloud. I once had to
> time a playscript - how long would it take to perform? I timed it by
> mumbling it to myself while riding in an airplane. (This was before 9/11:
> today, I'd probably be suspected of being a terrorist praying the Koran,
> something which actually happened to me in an airport boarding area when
> physical position - lying on the carpet because all the seats were taken -timing,
> was deemed suspicious.) Anyway, I thought I was making an accurate
> but later was informed to my horror that the actual reading aloud of theWell.... yes...
> play took twice as long as my subvocalized rendition did.
You lay down on the carpet in an airport? Are you nuts? One could get
stepped on. One could get dirty.
What is subvocalization? Reading quietly to oneself (or "mumbling")?
Next time, add a little, what is that game? -- Charades -- to your
I suppose we are all different.
You know... I once dreamed I ate a giant marshmallow. When I awoke, my
pillow was gone.
Now THAT's good silent reading.
Elizabeth Apgar Triano
amor vincit omnia
- ... It was a clean carpet. And nobody was going to get stepped on. The area was jammed with people waiting for a delayed flight. ... He did better than RalphMessage 2 of 2 , Dec 2, 2004View SourceAt 11:38 AM 12/2/2004 -0500, Lizzie wrote:
>You lay down on the carpet in an airport? Are you nuts? One could getIt was a clean carpet. And nobody was going to get stepped on. The area
>stepped on. One could get dirty.
was jammed with people waiting for a delayed flight.
>I maintain that it is Impossible to commit LOTR (or many another bit ofHe did better than Ralph Bakshi or Rankin-Bass, but unfortunately that is
>lit) to film, and that Jackson did so much better than I would have
>imagined that I am happy.
not a compliment.
An A for effort is not a final grade.
Do you think we'd all still be reading LOTR fifty years later if _it_ had
merely been "better than one would have imagined" for "an impossible task"?
>Terry Gilliam? Is he one of the Monty Python guys? There's a Terry thereDefining Terry Gilliam today as "one of the Monty Python guys" is pretty
>somewhere. So, tell us about it.
much like defining another director, Ron Howard, as "the kid on the Andy
Griffith show." He directed "Brazil", "The Fisher King", and "Twelve
Monkeys". His Quixote project died because it was underfinanced and the
actor playing Quixote became seriously ill.
>> But none of it has anything whatever to do with Tolkien.So this whole matter was brought up under cover of a discussion of
dramatization of Tolkien's book. A defense of the film as film, divorced
from Tolkien's book, is irrelevant to the point, and a distraction from the
painful truth that, as a dramatization, it's a miserable failure.