Does this make sense to anyone?

Novel (there was/is just one novel?)

The origin of the Mongolian novel dates back to the ending of the Song era and beginning of the Yuan era. However, the novel experienced it’s period of glory / its golden age in the Ming era. Its (no need for an ' there) origins can be found in the Buddhist narrations of the Tang era, when the historic novel was especially valued. Back then, an interesting historical event was selected and used in writings. Later the base of history was abandoned and the plot as well as the characters were completely fictitious. Imagination gained a greater importance.

to me, some of the essay seems disjointed, it doesnt flow freely - somtimes it appears like its just a collection of facts

if it was me I would go back and instead of having lots of short, sharp sentences, try to expand on them and make them into coherent bits of information

lol right, this has got me, Im going to upload something soon

hey choc-you put your points across very well in english-so i guess in german your essay will have more meaning using accents and intuiton- it is very good.
strangelly, the chinese form of literature and political script is not as popular in the english western world-so i am surprised that germans have translated a lot of the oriental prose-then again-shakespeare would put a lot of people off their love of language.
In fact there is no proof that he ever existed and if he did, he copied contempory stories of the time, and adapted them to his own purposes.
Linguistuc experts on shakespeare these days admit that he ripped off other peoples work, because not one of his plays is similar in language etc



.

err I mean weak* for a start

just a few ideas from me, we spend ages in Britain (england certainly) on essay writing, the grammar / construction etc

thank you, goosey

I think you're an exceptional writer. I learned something new today.

Jana, nice work. And Goose - nice work!

This is something that I just have to reply to (Shakespeare gets me going everytime ):

Why would you say Shakespeare would put a lot of people off their love of language? He was a genius with words, and he played with them in a very clever manner to create something very unique.

There is proof that he existed. Parts of his life have been documented (marriage for example). Obviously, also all his works that we have today (altho I must admit none of the original manuscripts have survived to this day ) are proof enough that he really did exist. Now, as to whether 'Shakespeare' was just one man, a group of writers (Ben Jonson et al.), a pseudonym... That we might never know, and to be honest, that I don't think is essential in analysing/appreciating his works.

Yes. You must remember Shakespeare was above all a playwright. Also an actor and a poet, but above all a playwright. He did not write his plays thinking that he is creating the greatest literature ever written in English, and he did not write 'great classic literature'. That is our interpretation of the texts, 450 years later (and admittedly, during the 450 years aswell). What he wrote were plays. (Also sonnets, as I said, he was also a poet) Plays to be performed to people in theatre. Comedy, tragedy, fantasy. And plays reflect the stories and conventions of the time. And Shakespeare did not just rewrite the contemporary stories of that time, he created something new. Why else would his plays be banned to be played inside London, forcing the theatre to be moved outside the city borders? If he was just rewriting what everyone were writing/doing at that time, this wouldn't have happened.

There are thousands and thousands of books published on Shakespeare. The linguists do not agree on the point you are making, the debate carries on and is alive and kickin'. It's not fair to say that he ripped off people's work. He might have used them as a basis for his inspiration, and used some of the language, but it has also been shown that Shakespeare used his language in a very versatile, clever and innovative way. As to 'not one of his plays is similar in language etc'... His plays do carry some similarities in which they are written. He uses a lot of puns, plays with words, uses words in ways they had not been used prior to him. There are similarities to be found in his plays. True, also differences. And this can of course be interpreted in two ways - either, he is a genius with words, not sticking to one style of writing (as he didn't stick to one type of plays) or it's a group of people with distinct styles of writing (but also cooperating in a lot of plays). I think it's needless to say which one I believe is true Altho the great thing about Shakespeare is you can just leave this question unanswered and enjoy the genious pen that put all these plays and sonnets on paper for us to read.

Ok. And that was just about Shakespaere the playwright. I could go on and on about Shakespeare the poet (because I find his sonnets to be even more genious than his plays, and that is said a lot) but I don't think I will just now We can continue the Shakespeare debate if you wish to. I'm up for it

well there is evidence that a william shakspar (note the spelling ) existed, but he only had a grammar school education and there is no record of him ever going to London. A lot of Scholars go with the de vere, earl of Oxford being the real Shakespeare but even then some plays were published after his death. I think it was a group of writers who conspired to publish these plays. Why do I think Shakepear's plays would put people off their love of the english language? Well, it's gotta be hard enough for a foreigner to learn english and then be asked to read shakespeare.

Should I compare thee to a summer's day?

Thou art more lovely and more temperate:

Should I compare you to a summer's day?

Although you are much more lovely and gentle.

Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,

And summer's lease hath all too short a date;

Violent winds destroy the beautiful buds

of the mayflower. And summer is too short.

Sometimes too hot the eye of heaven shines,

And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;

Sometimes the sun shines too hot, and

sometimes his glory is too bright that dims our visions.

And every fair from fair sometimes declines,

By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd:

Normally beauty will fade because of the change of time and nature.

But thy eternal summer shall not fade

Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st;

But your beauty will not fade nor will you lose possession of your fairness.

Nor shall Death brag thou wand'rest in his shade,

When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st;

Death can't boast that you're wondering in his shadow.

You will last forever with the lines of this poem.

So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,

So long lives this and

As long as men live or eyes can see, this poem will exist and so will you.

plain english is simple- why use language that makes it difficult to understand metaphors and how the images work- personally i like the plays. MacBeth because it is based on a real life Scottish King.

I just don't like being fooled into believing that anordinary man from a small market town, who was not an aristocrat and had never gone to university could write the plays, by himself.

Henry VIII was attributed to being written by more than 1 person, so it makes sense for me to believe the rest were written by a group of people.
When I was a schoolkid and went to Straford upon avon and visited ann Hathaway's house, I was led to believe that this poor chap could write more than 30 best selling plays. No way.

Anyway here is my clerihew on the man

What I like about Shakespeare
Is that he is no longer here
There is a great deal to be said
For being dead.

I love Shakespeare. Whether or not he wrote it on his own doesnt matter to me. I love the language he uses! He has written some of the greatest works of literature (imo) and would never have become so famous if it wasn't for the aristocratic language.