norwaywolf123

1. Varys: Is a force of destabilisation. 2. Cersei Lannister: Has essentially commited and kept an act(incest, cuckolded her husband) that if discovered will lead to war in Westeros. 3. Petyr Baelish: Is also a force of destabilisation. His management of the realms finances is meant to plunder Westeros.

Do you care to elaborate? To me male and female is biological terms for different breeding roles. But i do accept there are cases which are not clearcut like XX men. Maybe i am confusing the terms sex and gender? I am intrested in how humans in 50, 100, 200 years will see and experience gender and sex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system#Humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender#Biological_factors_and_views Most women where what i think you are refering to by sterotypical medieval girls, and they were the wast majority of women in that time and age. But there also where women who had more "masculine" roles like Leif Eriksons sister. Leif's sister was a warrior in her own right, and is both famous and infamous for her actions and deeds. Most famously helping repell a "skraeling" attack aswell as having two norse men and their families killed for having claimed some houses she wanted for herself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freydís_Eiríksdóttir I felt that G.R.R.M neglected more historically realistic portrayals of the time his books are inspired by. Maybe this is becouse he has focused on the nobillity. What do you mean by "progress"? JOffrey was the most dissapointing character to me. I did not feel he was properly fleshed out, but we have only gotten glimpses of him from people who did not know him well, disliked him and cersei. Dany was the character i liked the least, to me Catelyn and Brienne were the most enjoyable female povs. Of the male povs i liked Jon the best event though tywin is my favorite character.

I agree that it is not set in stone, yet. First the landmass that is called westeros do not have any inherent laws, the laws and social customs are social constructs. The ironborn who follow the drowned god accept some sort of polygamy in that a man can have one rock wife and many salt wifes. We also do not know the position of the first men and followers of the old gods before the andal invasion, "Although the views of the First Men on polygamy are not known." What we know is that the Faith of the Seven, the majority religion of Westeros, and the most organised relgion in westeros fo oppose polygamy. FotS opposition to polygamy was a big part of the instability during Aenys targaryens reign. Any descendent of a targaryen has a blood claim, still that is not as strong as a blood claim combined with a legal claim. I agree Good point. It depends, some people might accept polygamy, but others like the Faith of the Seven won't. With the faith militant on the rise their opinon are getting increased influence.

Most of the classics used to be greco-roman in origin. Good points! For example many greek plays who were not considered worthy of preservation were forgotten, so it is inaccurate to judge the past as being only the preserved works. Høy litteratur “Trenger kunstnere narkotika mer enn andre? Richard Davenport-Hines undersøker forfatternes vaner. “ Å bestandig være nykter er verken naturlig eller behagelig, og rusmidler er en essensiell del av livet og litteraturen. «Livet er en uhelbredelig sykdom», skrev Abraham Crowley i 1656. Og frem til det 20. århundret var det også uproblematisk å bruke dop som krykke for emosjonelt stress eller for å øke produktiviteten i arbeidet. Sir Clifford Allbutt, den store victorianske lege som var forbildet for George Eliots karakter Dr. Lydgate i «Middlemarch», mente at alle mennesker trengte dop «for å berolige nervesystemet og overvinne trøtthet.» Selv opium, skrev han, kunne bli brukt «ikke som et tidsfordriv eller ondskapsfull nytelse, men som et meningsfullt hjelpemiddel i livets arbeid.» Forfattere forstod at noen stoffer hadde rekreasjonsaspekter, mens andre stoffer penslet de dårlige nervene, søvnløsheten og andre lidelser som fulgte med å ha en kreativ karriere. Green: "Life is a inncureable condition" Wrote Abraham Crowley in 1656. You can use google translate for approximate translation. I will consider your suggestion.

https://www.filmweb.no/filmnytt/article889025.ece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desperado_(film) This is an article from a norwegian film commentary site. It claims that "desperado" was not high, but the novel "El Coronel no tiene quien le escriba" by author Gabriel Garcia Marquez is. Im not familliar with either "desperado" or "El Coronel no tiene quien le escriba" so i dont know how to contrast them. To decipher the requirements they had to put the two titles into "high" and "low". To me it seems like they are mixing litterature, film and film inspired by litterature. So im not sure about the thought process of filmweb commentator. The purpose the author has when it is produced. The purpose literature receives by its users. I think the most important aspect of a literary work is the purpose it receives by its users. What we see as classical literature is only a small collection of literature that were considered worthy of preservation or survived by coincidence. Maybe classical literature is overwhelmingly stemming from the pasts "high literature", while the "popular or low literature" of the past has been forgotten, become untraceble, dissapeared from human memory? Blue: Intresting! Green: What purpose do you think present day literature has? Maybe effect would be a more appropriate wording? The effect the literature has on its readers. So a literary work is dependant on the readers opinon to be classified, it is not a universal way of categorising? A work should be "high" or "low" indepentant of the reception of the work. Just my opinion. Can i not use the word "manhood" in this context? What word do you think i should used?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW10LigPogk (G.R.R.M is asked on high literture vs low literture) Maybe there is a transcript of this online?

I get that. But could the pasts popular literature while being seen as classical literture, still be popular literature or does it change form when it ages? Does it become high litterature when it has become a classic? I am trying to understand the concept of "high and low literture" as something timeless, or present in the moment of today and the literatures release. But it is intrested that some literture that would be called low brow in its day, is considered high literture now. Intresting commentary on the Tolstoy! This guy Jason Carney focused on high literture in pulp magazines more often seen as more lowbrow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBu8vSQdL84 What i am more intrested in is the description of the concepts "high literture" and "low literture". Maybe it is some qualities like making a person question him/herself, question observations, question what you have been told, question the common wisdom, question the status quo? I have not read Goethe's Werther but i have heard it is about the transition from youth to manhood. Funny

Personally i think that the purpose of the text is most important when it comes to grade it as "high" or "low" literature. A work of high literature has a purpose to teach something, reveal something. Make a person question himself, a truth, a statement. High literture is supossed to improve the reader as an individual. While low literture or popular litertures aims to entertain or earn money. Sorry, it is not my intention.

Is classical literature neccesarily "high litterature"? I guess the argument that works of "high literature" have been better preserved than "popular literature" could be made as elites have had more acess to documents and the means to preserve them. That is one view on the matter.

What is the function of art? How is art percieved? What is literatures function? Does different forms of literature have different function? I would say yes as some literature is written to earn profit, others to relay a message or belief. Does the purpose of the writer have any impact on how the text is recived and what kind of text is constructed? "Genre" or "general"? Do you refer to popular, as in the literature of the masses? Do you think the texts from the litterary canon of a nation, nationstate, religion, corporation or any other organisation is neccesarily "high literature"? Examples like the icelandic saga of the icelanders or the bible of christianity. What kind of literture was important in building the national idea? To me it seems to be focused on the deeds of predecessors, their thoughts and beliefs. Aswell as a constructed image of the ideal ancestor in the image of the present. Sounds vain on the part of the axademics to me. Thank you. I have corrected my spellings now.

How would elite litterature(high vs non artistic litterature. Is that a good lens to understand high and low litterture thru? How would you describe artistic?

What do you mean? So you think amiguity is an important factor in deciding if a litterary work of fiction is "high litterture" as opposed to "low or popular litterature ?

Would you agree that Shakesspear is an example of high litterature? Do you disagree with the concept of seperating "high litterature" from "low or popular litterature"? Why did you think that distinction was made? What litterary works do universitites pretend to be high litterature, science, humanities?

Why?

I did that already, i trying to get more direction into the topic. Here: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/149102-high-vs-low-litterature/