7 ms·
Gibbon might not be the best example, his writing style is very hard to read because most of his books were written in the 16th century. I agree with you in sp
by misiti3780 6y ago
Gibbon might not be the best example, his writing style is very hard to read because most of his books were written in the 16th century.
I agree with you in spirit though. Most people are reading shit.
- rsynnott 6y agoIt's also, er, mostly _wrong_. Gibbon might be an interesting thing for someone to read, but it shouldn't be taken at all seriously as history.
- greenwich26 6y agoThe most famous Edward Gibbon published his main work on the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in the late 18th century, and the writing style is famously conversational and informal, especially in the extensive footnotes. It's not at all difficult to read. Though it certainly is long.
- zabzonk 6y ago18th Century. It's completely readable, as are many other works written at the same time, such as Boswell's Life of Johnson. As for the 16th (and early 17th) century - Shakespeare?
- billfruit 6y agoShakespeare and Spencer are very readable to a modern reader with a bit of effort.
- zabzonk 6y agoThat was my point re Shakespeare - I don't particularly agree about Spencer.
- intergalplan 6y agoShakespeare's much easier to watch than to read as you can pick up context clues from the visual component and from the delivery of the lines, which aid greatly in understanding. Watching the plays performed makes the plays easier to read, over time, in my experience. Unlike, say, a film version of a novel, I don't think you're losing anything watching his plays instead of reading them. Arguably, watching them (or both watching and reading) is the superior way to experience them.
- billfruit 6y agoYes, but hard to find productions of many of his plays, unless you are in a major city in the West, with dedicated Shakespeare companies. For many people reading remains the only option.
- intergalplan 6y agoThere are plenty of really good video recordings of all but the most obscure plays (I'm sure there are a few of King John, for instance, but not a tenth as many as there are of King Lear). It's not the same as seeing it live, but serves the same purpose of making the language easier to follow.
- misiti3780 6y agosorry you are right, i knew it was in the late 1700s but i always mix up centuries, my dyslexia kicks in