Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
take arms against a sea of troubles
43 views
Skip to first unread message
StephenCalder
Oct 25, 2011, 12:35:20 AM10/25/11
to
take arms against a sea of troubles
"To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?"
What was Bill thinking? Can anyone defend him against the charge of
mixed metaphor? How can one "take arms" against "a sea"?
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
"To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?"
What was Bill thinking? Can anyone defend him against the charge of
mixed metaphor? How can one "take arms" against "a sea"?
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Horace LaBadie
Oct 25, 2011, 12:42:50 AM10/25/11
to
Evan Kirshenbaum
Oct 25, 2011, 1:52:16 AM10/25/11
to
overwhelming quantity or mass (of something)". It's the fourth such
quotation, so it was presumably well established.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Ye knowe ek, that in forme of speche
SF Bay Area (1982-) | is chaunge
Chicago (1964-1982) |Withinne a thousand yer, and wordes
| tho
evan.kir...@gmail.com |That hadden prys now wonder nyce and
| straunge
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |Us thenketh hem, and yet they spake
| hem so
| Chaucer
abzorba
Oct 25, 2011, 1:59:38 AM10/25/11
to
some being utterly risible on the one hand (and do not ALL mixed
metaphors invite laughter?) and being quite acceptable on the other.
"Taking arms against a sea of troubles" seems ok now, but did it THEN?
(Perhaps it only seems acceptable now, because Bill rehabilitated it.)
Was the concept of "mixed metaphor" around back then? Bill could use
"most perfect" and the like, which we would not do today, so perhaps
the injunction against mixing up metaphors, opposed to your Greek and
Latin, was less punctilious.
Myles (still mixing it up) Paulsen
navi
Oct 25, 2011, 2:59:32 AM10/25/11
to
If we accept that the definition Evan proposes for "sea" is the
relevant one here, then I think the verses do not really contain mixed
metaphors.
I've always thought that Hamlet himself is "the sea of troubles" (is
that obvious? is that silly?...) and taking up arms against "the sea"
simply means suicide. I like the image (even if we take "sea" to mean
"the big blue wobbly watery thing"). The sea is turning against
itself. It is perhaps a bit bombastic but what the hell (Isn't "hell"
a bombastic word?)
And then, maybe, as Abzorba suggests, some mixed metaphors are better
than others.
BUT, BUT, BUT let us not forget that it is not Shakespeare who is
mixing metaphors, but Hamlet. And Hamlet cannot really think straight
and is full of bombastic talk. He is replacing action with words, is
he not? "Spoke daggers to her but used none". He doesn't really commit
suicide either (at least not in this scene). He just talks about
it.... Instead of "taking up arms" he just talks up arms!! I could go
on forever about this!!!!!!
"Mixing metaphors" is itself a metaphor.
My apologies if I overstepped my boundaries.
Gratefully.
Navi.
Eric Walker
Oct 25, 2011, 4:34:14 AM10/25/11
to
them is so great as to suggest that they are each a drop in a veritable
sea of them.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
R H Draney
Oct 25, 2011, 4:48:24 AM10/25/11
to
StephenCalder filted:
A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a metaphor?...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
James Hogg
Oct 25, 2011, 5:02:39 AM10/25/11
to
conjures up interesting ideas.
--
James
Stan Brown
Oct 25, 2011, 6:41:44 AM10/25/11
to
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:35:20 +1100, StephenCalder wrote:
>
>
A whole lot, poetically "a sea" of them.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
CDB
Oct 25, 2011, 8:23:54 AM10/25/11
to
navi wrote:
I think there may be a suggestion of futility in the image, as Horace
suggested. Besides Canute, there was the Emperor Caligula, who made
war on Neptune during his unsuccessful attempt to invade Britannia,
returning triumphant with treasure-chests full of shells*, but he was
mad. The Emperor Xerxes had the Hellespont whipped and chained for
refusing to cooperate against the Greeks, but he was at the least very
angry.
____________
*Don't recall reading that part, but it was in the TV production of
the Graves novels.
suggested. Besides Canute, there was the Emperor Caligula, who made
war on Neptune during his unsuccessful attempt to invade Britannia,
returning triumphant with treasure-chests full of shells*, but he was
mad. The Emperor Xerxes had the Hellespont whipped and chained for
refusing to cooperate against the Greeks, but he was at the least very
angry.
____________
*Don't recall reading that part, but it was in the TV production of
the Graves novels.
>
> And then, maybe, as Abzorba suggests, some mixed metaphors are
> better
> than others.
>
> BUT, BUT, BUT let us not forget that it is not Shakespeare who is
> mixing metaphors, but Hamlet. And Hamlet cannot really think
> straight
> and is full of bombastic talk. He is replacing action with words, is
> he not? "Spoke daggers to her but used none". He doesn't really
> commit
> suicide either (at least not in this scene). He just talks about
> it.... Instead of "taking up arms" he just talks up arms!! I could
> go
> on forever about this!!!!!!
>
> "Mixing metaphors" is itself a metaphor.
>
> My apologies if I overstepped my boundaries.
> Gratefully.
>
There, there, ever so there.
> And then, maybe, as Abzorba suggests, some mixed metaphors are
> better
> than others.
>
> BUT, BUT, BUT let us not forget that it is not Shakespeare who is
> mixing metaphors, but Hamlet. And Hamlet cannot really think
> straight
> and is full of bombastic talk. He is replacing action with words, is
> he not? "Spoke daggers to her but used none". He doesn't really
> commit
> suicide either (at least not in this scene). He just talks about
> it.... Instead of "taking up arms" he just talks up arms!! I could
> go
> on forever about this!!!!!!
>
> "Mixing metaphors" is itself a metaphor.
>
> My apologies if I overstepped my boundaries.
> Gratefully.
>
Marius Hancu
Oct 25, 2011, 10:11:17 AM10/25/11
to
Fighting the fluidity/slickness (of sea/water), that can't be caught,
poked, with real effect.
Fighting the multitude (of waves coming back at you).
I think his contemporaries didn't have troubles with it.
But perhaps they did.
Marius Hancu
R H Draney
Oct 25, 2011, 2:29:51 PM10/25/11
to
James Hogg filted:
http://www.oglaf.com/atonement/1/
Don't miss page two for the explanation of the giraffepillar....r
>
>The sign for Transfers at a Greek airport reads "Metaphors". That
>conjures up interesting ideas.
Not least this recent chapter of Oglaf (warning! NSFW):
>The sign for Transfers at a Greek airport reads "Metaphors". That
>conjures up interesting ideas.
http://www.oglaf.com/atonement/1/
Don't miss page two for the explanation of the giraffepillar....r
Joe Fineman
Oct 25, 2011, 3:22:37 PM10/25/11
to
well-established idiom for "combat", and "a sea of" is a
well-established idiom for "a great mass of". By itself, neither
calls up any vivid image. However, as Fowler points out in MEU, a
dead metaphor can come alive again if used (as it is here) in close
proximity to a conflicting one.
It is usual & sensible, tho, to note that Shakespeare was not writing
that line _in propria persona_. "What was Hamlet thinking?" is the
real question. As we learn from that speech, he had too much on his
mind to be concerned with rhetorical niceties.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Math problems? Call 1-800-[(10x)(13i)^2]-[sin(xy)/2.362x]. :||
Mike Lyle
Oct 25, 2011, 5:32:26 PM10/25/11
to
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 06:41:44 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:35:20 +1100, StephenCalder wrote:
>>
>> take arms against a sea of troubles
>>
>>
>> "To be, or not to be, that is the question:
>> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
>> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
>> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
>> And by opposing end them?"
>>
>> What was Bill thinking? Can anyone defend him against the charge of
>> mixed metaphor? How can one "take arms" against "a sea"?
>
>It's not taking arms against a sea, but against troubles. How many?
>A whole lot, poetically "a sea" of them.
And where do those waves of troubles crash and roar? In his mind, or
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:35:20 +1100, StephenCalder wrote:
>>
>> take arms against a sea of troubles
>>
>>
>> "To be, or not to be, that is the question:
>> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
>> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
>> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
>> And by opposing end them?"
>>
>> What was Bill thinking? Can anyone defend him against the charge of
>> mixed metaphor? How can one "take arms" against "a sea"?
>
>It's not taking arms against a sea, but against troubles. How many?
>A whole lot, poetically "a sea" of them.
"heart": "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it
so." So to take arms against himself would be to take arms against the
troubles: the rest would be silence.
--
Mike.
StephenCalder
Oct 25, 2011, 7:12:05 PM10/25/11
to
On 26/10/2011 6:22 AM, Joe Fineman wrote:
> StephenCalder<cald...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> take arms against a sea of troubles
>>
>> "To be, or not to be, that is the question:
>> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
>> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
>> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
>> And by opposing end them?"
>>
>> What was Bill thinking? Can anyone defend him against the charge of
>> mixed metaphor? How can one "take arms" against "a sea"?
>
> As others on this thread have pointed out, "take arms against" is a
> well-established idiom for "combat", and "a sea of" is a
> well-established idiom for "a great mass of". By itself, neither
> calls up any vivid image. However, as Fowler points out in MEU, a
> dead metaphor can come alive again if used (as it is here) in close
> proximity to a conflicting one.
>
> It is usual& sensible, tho, to note that Shakespeare was not writing
> StephenCalder<cald...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> take arms against a sea of troubles
>>
>> "To be, or not to be, that is the question:
>> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
>> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
>> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
>> And by opposing end them?"
>>
>> What was Bill thinking? Can anyone defend him against the charge of
>> mixed metaphor? How can one "take arms" against "a sea"?
>
> As others on this thread have pointed out, "take arms against" is a
> well-established idiom for "combat", and "a sea of" is a
> well-established idiom for "a great mass of". By itself, neither
> calls up any vivid image. However, as Fowler points out in MEU, a
> dead metaphor can come alive again if used (as it is here) in close
> proximity to a conflicting one.
>
> that line _in propria persona_. "What was Hamlet thinking?" is the
> real question. As we learn from that speech, he had too much on his
> mind to be concerned with rhetorical niceties.
Thanks for the discussion, everyone. It seems to me that Shakespeare
> real question. As we learn from that speech, he had too much on his
> mind to be concerned with rhetorical niceties.
could have found a better word than "sea".
I don't think Shakespeare sacrifices style in order to illustrate his
protagonist's mental frailty.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
navi
Oct 25, 2011, 8:18:36 PM10/25/11
to
On Oct 25, 4:12 pm, StephenCalder <calder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 26/10/2011 6:22 AM, Joe Fineman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > StephenCalder<calder...@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 26/10/2011 6:22 AM, Joe Fineman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
To sacrifice or not to sacrifice style, that is the question!
You could argue that the approach according to which every character's
speech must match his personality is modern and would not be adopted
by Shakespeare. A more careful look at Hamlet's metaphors might shed
light on that issue. You might also rely on the fact (if indeed it is
a fact... I mean this has to be verified) that the reception of this
monologue at the time and ever since does not reflect any negative
evaluation. I personally don't think at the time people who saw the
play thought to themselves: "There goes our neurotic boy again with
the pile of bombastic talk and mixed metaphors he is so wont to use."
If that monologue became popular at the time and was taken seriously
and considered a good piece of writting, then...
But if that is true, than we must conclude that nobody minded the fact
that the metaphors were mixed in that passage (assuming they were).
Now if everybody likes a passage which has mixed metaphors, cannot one
conclude that mixed metaphors are not necessarily bad.
In short, taking Shakespeare into account would not be enough. We have
to consider the reception his work had, especially in his own time.
My apologies again if I have spoken sloppily and/or out of turn.
Gratefully.
Navi
Jared
Oct 26, 2011, 12:36:09 AM10/26/11
to
--
Jared
James Hogg
Oct 26, 2011, 2:22:33 AM10/26/11
to
metaphors.
--
James
abzorba
Oct 26, 2011, 4:25:20 AM10/26/11
to
On Oct 26, 6:22 am, Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
<sniperoonyettes>
at the wild wind and his Fool, instead of forming some of the most
beautiful poetry ever written. Characters must speak true to who they
are, but Shakespeare never makes a boring tool speak in the vernacular
you might expect of one. He still speaks true to what he is, but the
language transcends the vulgarity and dross. This is because the
playwright must keep faith with the audience, who are to be
transported elsewhere. Else, he might have written the dialogue you
find in cinema verite, and isn't that a giant bore....
Myles (but tis yet confused...more later....) Paulsen
<sniperoonyettes>
> It is usual & sensible, tho, to note that Shakespeare was not writing
> that line _in propria persona_. "What was Hamlet thinking?" is the
> real question. As we learn from that speech, he had too much on his
> mind to be concerned with rhetorical niceties.
> --
If that were so, Lear would be doing nothing but screaming obscenities
> that line _in propria persona_. "What was Hamlet thinking?" is the
> real question. As we learn from that speech, he had too much on his
> mind to be concerned with rhetorical niceties.
> --
at the wild wind and his Fool, instead of forming some of the most
beautiful poetry ever written. Characters must speak true to who they
are, but Shakespeare never makes a boring tool speak in the vernacular
you might expect of one. He still speaks true to what he is, but the
language transcends the vulgarity and dross. This is because the
playwright must keep faith with the audience, who are to be
transported elsewhere. Else, he might have written the dialogue you
find in cinema verite, and isn't that a giant bore....
Myles (but tis yet confused...more later....) Paulsen
Donna Richoux
Oct 26, 2011, 9:28:03 AM10/26/11
to
StephenCalder <cald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 26/10/2011 6:22 AM, Joe Fineman wrote:
> > StephenCalder<cald...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> take arms against a sea of troubles
> >>
> >> "To be, or not to be, that is the question:
> >> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
> >> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
> >> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
> >> And by opposing end them?"
> >>
> >> What was Bill thinking? Can anyone defend him against the charge of
> >> mixed metaphor? How can one "take arms" against "a sea"?
[snip]
> On 26/10/2011 6:22 AM, Joe Fineman wrote:
> > StephenCalder<cald...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> take arms against a sea of troubles
> >>
> >> "To be, or not to be, that is the question:
> >> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
> >> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
> >> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
> >> And by opposing end them?"
> >>
> >> What was Bill thinking? Can anyone defend him against the charge of
> >> mixed metaphor? How can one "take arms" against "a sea"?
>
> Thanks for the discussion, everyone. It seems to me that Shakespeare
> could have found a better word than "sea".
>
Potload?
> Thanks for the discussion, everyone. It seems to me that Shakespeare
> could have found a better word than "sea".
>
Mike Lyle
Oct 26, 2011, 3:03:32 PM10/26/11
to
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:22:33 +0200, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com>
wrote:
>Jared wrote:
>> On 10/25/2011 5:02 AM, James Hogg wrote:
>>> R H Draney wrote:
>>>> StephenCalder filted:
>>>>> take arms against a sea of troubles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "To be, or not to be, that is the question:
>>>>> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
>>>>> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
>>>>> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
>>>>> And by opposing end them?"
>>>>>
>>>>> What was Bill thinking? Can anyone defend him against the charge of
>>>>> mixed metaphor? How can one "take arms" against "a sea"?
>>>>
>>>> A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a metaphor?...r
>>>
>>> The sign for Transfers at a Greek airport reads "Metaphors". That
>>> conjures up interesting ideas.
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't it actually read ??????????
Unless it's to be taken metaphorically, of course.
--
Mike.
wrote:
>Jared wrote:
>> On 10/25/2011 5:02 AM, James Hogg wrote:
>>> R H Draney wrote:
>>>> StephenCalder filted:
>>>>> take arms against a sea of troubles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "To be, or not to be, that is the question:
>>>>> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
>>>>> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
>>>>> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
>>>>> And by opposing end them?"
>>>>>
>>>>> What was Bill thinking? Can anyone defend him against the charge of
>>>>> mixed metaphor? How can one "take arms" against "a sea"?
>>>>
>>>> A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a metaphor?...r
>>>
>>> The sign for Transfers at a Greek airport reads "Metaphors". That
>>> conjures up interesting ideas.
>>>
>>
>
>Yes. You see that on the sides of lorries too. Imagine a truck-load of
>metaphors.
I'm more intrigued by the notion of a truck-load of question-marks.
>Yes. You see that on the sides of lorries too. Imagine a truck-load of
>metaphors.
Unless it's to be taken metaphorically, of course.
--
Mike.
Skitt
Oct 26, 2011, 3:21:43 PM10/26/11
to
Mike Lyle wrote:
> James Hogg wrote:
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
> James Hogg wrote:
>> Jared wrote:
>>> James Hogg wrote:
>>>> R H Draney wrote:
>>>>> StephenCalder filted:
>>>>>> take arms against a sea of troubles
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "To be, or not to be, that is the question:
>>>>>> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
>>>>>> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
>>>>>> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
>>>>>> And by opposing end them?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What was Bill thinking? Can anyone defend him against the charge of
>>>>>> mixed metaphor? How can one "take arms" against "a sea"?
>>>>>
>>>>> A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a metaphor?...r
>>>>
>>>> The sign for Transfers at a Greek airport reads "Metaphors". That
>>>> conjures up interesting ideas.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't it actually read ??????????
>>
>> Yes. You see that on the sides of lorries too. Imagine a truck-load of
>> metaphors.
>
> I'm more intrigued by the notion of a truck-load of question-marks.
> Unless it's to be taken metaphorically, of course.
>
It was all Greek to me. Literally.
>>> James Hogg wrote:
>>>> R H Draney wrote:
>>>>> StephenCalder filted:
>>>>>> take arms against a sea of troubles
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "To be, or not to be, that is the question:
>>>>>> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
>>>>>> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
>>>>>> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
>>>>>> And by opposing end them?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What was Bill thinking? Can anyone defend him against the charge of
>>>>>> mixed metaphor? How can one "take arms" against "a sea"?
>>>>>
>>>>> A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a metaphor?...r
>>>>
>>>> The sign for Transfers at a Greek airport reads "Metaphors". That
>>>> conjures up interesting ideas.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't it actually read ??????????
>>
>> Yes. You see that on the sides of lorries too. Imagine a truck-load of
>> metaphors.
>
> I'm more intrigued by the notion of a truck-load of question-marks.
> Unless it's to be taken metaphorically, of course.
>
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
abzorba
Oct 27, 2011, 1:06:57 AM10/27/11
to
On Oct 27, 12:28 am, t...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
> > Thanks for the discussion, everyone. It seems to me that Shakespeare
> > could have found a better word than "sea".
>
> Potload?
Zillions?
> > Thanks for the discussion, everyone. It seems to me that Shakespeare
> > could have found a better word than "sea".
>
> Potload?
Myles (Myles number > Grahams number: MN rules!!!) Paulsen
R H Draney
Oct 27, 2011, 2:01:01 AM10/27/11
to
Mike Lyle filted:
I've seen that truck...it was driven by Matthew Lesko....r
Peter Brooks
Oct 27, 2011, 3:05:50 AM10/27/11
to
On Oct 27, 7:06 am, abzorba <myles...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 12:28 am, t...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
>
> > > Thanks for the discussion, everyone. It seems to me that Shakespeare
> > > could have found a better word than "sea".
>
> > Potload?
>
> Zillions?
>
'Army', 'Legion' or 'Nursery' would seem better choices if 'sea' was
> On Oct 27, 12:28 am, t...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
>
> > > Thanks for the discussion, everyone. It seems to me that Shakespeare
> > > could have found a better word than "sea".
>
> > Potload?
>
> Zillions?
>
out of bounds (as it is, being the 'boundless ocean').
James Hogg
Oct 27, 2011, 3:22:11 AM10/27/11
to
Have you no sense of rhythm? You could take arms against a "host" of
troubles, but is that really more poetic than a "sea"?
--
James
StephenCalder
Oct 27, 2011, 7:37:09 PM10/27/11
to
--
Stephen
Ballina, Australia
Horace LaBadie
Oct 27, 2011, 8:52:36 PM10/27/11
to
Peter Brooks
Oct 27, 2011, 11:13:03 PM10/27/11
to
an excellent choice. I was simply offering alternatives to 'sea', not
trying to improve Hastivibrax.
abzorba
Oct 30, 2011, 11:56:50 PM10/30/11
to
On Oct 28, 11:52 am, Horace LaBadie
<hwlabadi...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote:
> In article <j8cpv7$tb...@dont-email.me>,
> Bunch.- Hide quoted text -
be properly observed.
Myles (this might invite a whole bunch of conts) Paulsen (I wrote
conts, nothing else).
<hwlabadi...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote:
> In article <j8cpv7$tb...@dont-email.me>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whole bunch, if this uniquely American term for a set of items is to
> - Show quoted text -
be properly observed.
Myles (this might invite a whole bunch of conts) Paulsen (I wrote
conts, nothing else).
0 new messages