The what ever thread...

[Disarm D'arcy]

I think excane posted this in his demo thread and there was a talk about this meme. You bros are late to the party

[D.o.S.]

I bet it was a lame party anyway.

[Chankgeez]

I broke a string playing yesterday and I never break strings playing. I only break strings tuning when they're old and need to be changed anyway.

[UglyCasanova]

Is this god English? Does it make sense? I can't fucking stand writing opening paragraphs. I'm in way over my head in this course.

Edit:Removed so I don't fail, lol

[D.o.S.]

god english, eh?

Well I;m not here to be chummy or chatty.

[lordgalvar]

Is this god English? Does it make sense? I can't fucking stand writing opening paragraphs. I'm in way over my head in this course.

My problem with most critics and literary theorists writing about Emily Dickinson and the theme of death in her poetry, is that their
reading of her poetic catalog as a whole is split down the middle, as if the poet constantly switches between two modes of psyche. They either
read Dickinson's sentimental poems on heartfelt grief, liberation through poetry and religious doubt, or they read her humorous poems on nature
and death. While I find these readings to be highly nourishing for my academic intellect and personal insight into Dickinson's poetry and character,
they seem somewhat lacking in trying to capture the two opposite sides' thematic intermediary. I have always read her verse in a much more
sinister fashion. Throughout her vast poetic catalog I find a recurring theme of violent and erotic tension, working as a glue, binding all of the
other themes together. By looking at Dickinson's obsession with death through pain and violence, in either the physical, psychological or sexual
sense of the word, I seek to uncover the Dionysian Dickinson.

What kind of a course is it? Is this supposed to be an expository work or a personal "opinion"? In terms of straight content, you seem to wander between different themes within her writing instead of focusing on your main theme of "death". It is also unclear if you are going to criticize the critics or build your own, separate arguement. There are a lot of grammar errors (commas and stuff). The final statement is an alright thesis but you need to state how you will show this (either through known criticism, formal analysis, biographical, etc). Also, the word "Dionysian" could be considered unclear or idiosyncratic.

First person and second person discussion is frowned upon within formal writing.

PM me and I can edit. I almost got a dang old masters degree in this stuff. Don't use it on the message board/facebooks too much no more.

[UglyCasanova]

Thanks for all the input. I'll be sure to send you a PM when I've got something a little more substantial to work with. If you guys would be as kind as to edit away my text from your quotes, that would be great, haha. Would be kind of sad if I got a fail or something for getting help from teh intraweebz. You never know how well teachers search for stuff these days.

[D.o.S.]

Done and did.

[UglyCasanova]

Well I;m not here to be chummy or chatty.

YES! *points and winks*

[Twangasaurus]

Hey man, sounds good to me. What do you mean exactly by the "Dionysian Dickson" though? Are you using Dionysus as analogue for this violent hedonism in Dickinsons work because if so (and I'm certainly no expert on Greek theology/mythology) but that doesn't quite gel I don't think? Something (very minor) to keep in mind is that the Olympian religion and the Dionysiac-Orphic/Mysteries of Dionysus religion are two very different things, the latter having more in common with early Christianity.

[UglyCasanova]

Hey man, sounds good to me. What do you mean exactly by the "Dionysian Dickson" though? Are you using Dionysus as analogue for this violent hedonism in Dickinsons work because if so (and I'm certainly no expert on Greek theology/mythology) but that doesn't quite gel I don't think? Something (very minor) to keep in mind is that the Olympian religion and the Dionysiac-Orphic/Mysteries of Dionysus religion are two very different things, the latter having more in common with early Christianity.

Thank you for the input and kind words. I will be using the term based on Nietzsche's definition of it. From "The Birth of Tragedy". The text is part of the syllabus, so I guess I just thought it would be a given considering my teacher is the person grading me. I should make it more clear either way. Thanks again!

[phantasmagorovich]

I can't tell if that is good english or bad, but it seems a little convoluted.
And you never use first or second person in an academic text. The whole trick is to make it sound like what you are writing is just a truth everyone should know. But since you are writing for the plebeian morons you are going to spell it out. Spelling it out/explaining yourself is always the trick with academic writing. If you explain your point well and prove it accordingly (by annotations) you are golden and contents are almost irrelevant.
In the small portion that Lord Galvar quotes I find it a little odd that you don't cite whose works you mean when you talk about the reading "split down in the middle". You need to put names to these accusations. If you don't you are just a student of 20-odd years telling the whole academic world they're wrong. Not bad in itself, but you need to back that up!
Also I'm not sure if Dionysian is the right term. I'm assuming you are referring to Nietzsche and his Dionysian and Appolinic principles. You are linking violence, sex, death and obsession before you introduce the term. In my memory that is not Nietzsche's Dionysian principle, which is in essence about the loss of boundaries vs the order of the Appolinic principle. I think you might be better served with a psychoanalytic reading focusing on the Freudian "death drive" and it's perversions. Especially if you look into Melanie Klein and Jacques Lacan you might find interesting stuff on the perverse linking of violence, destruction and the erotic.

tl;dr: Let's talk on pm's if you want an opinion.

[futuresailors]

Unless you're constantly contrasting against critics' writings in the body, I would cut out that entire section. You're not reading in a sinister fashion (though you might be), so open with something stupid like "Emily Dickinson was a poet most sinister."

[UglyCasanova]

Removed the part about the critics and first person person, although it is quite commonly used in Norwegian academic texts. We're weird like that. I used the Nietzsche text quite heavily before, when writing an essay on Emily Brönte. Got an A, so I believe I know how to use it to my advantage. Lucan was a might good tips! Thank you all so very much again. <3

[lordgalvar]

PM'd you back. Let me know if you need clairifcation. You need to state in the opening though that you are doing a comparative view between the philosophical creation of art introduced in The Birth of Tragedy and the created art of Dickenson. I do agree that sinister is a loaded word that could be misread. Thanks for letting me edit a bit...haven't had a chance to do that for a while (except for my own comic scripts, but that just gets nutty after 65 revisions and stuff).