On 2 Sep 2005 17:46:35 GMT, (Jeremy Spinrad)
wrote:


Schiller has hit upon a clever scheme. He realizes that people buy a book mostly
on the basis of its title, and spends more time than most authors thinking about
interesting topics and ways to sell these topics. Unfortunately, once he has the
topic, he simply wants to see the project to completion, rather than trying to
cover it well.

I will give you an example of this. I was talking to Schiller once. He
told me that he was writing a book on the Some-Such Variation of the
Blackmar Diemar Gambit.

I said that I had never heard of that variation. What are the moves?

He said, "The moves are 1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. f3 exf3 4. Qxf3"

I said, "You can't write a book about that. That just looses."

His reply was, "Not if your opponent is a 1500 player, it doesn't
lose."

Sam Sloan

OK. The original aurthor, Camembert, has added balance by quoting some
favorible reviews of Schiller's books, to balance the entirely
negative reviews he had quoted previously. The article is okay now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Schiller

Sam Sloan

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:21:54 GMT, Sam Sloan wrote:

A German tells us that a Russian translator was a better writer
of English than Shakespeare ever was.

Most non-Americans speak multiple languages fluently, which gives them a
generally better understanding of langauges in general.

Personally, I've never fully understood the fascination with Shakespeare,
either. How many people repeat what everyone else says, without ever having
taken a look at this fairly (language-wise) obsolete and cumbersome stuff?
Certainly, Shakespeare's works may have been great for his time, especially
since most people could neither write nor read, but what actual, practical
relevance do they have today? The English then and the English today aren't
quite the same. I think Tolkien's works, for example, are probably more
relevant today.

But who knows, perhaps I'm culturally challenged.

M.

"Michael Vondung" I've never fully understood the fascination with
Shakespeare,
either. How many people repeat what everyone else says, without ever
having
taken a look at this fairly (language-wise) obsolete and cumbersome stuff?


As an English Lit. major, I have to agree with you 100%. Shakespeare was
probably the Spielberg of his day. He did 37 or so plays, and most if not
all of them were big hits. So for his time, he was the biggest thing in
culture. He also put just about every possible witty saying and cliche' into
his plays, so that they have lots of interesting lines that lend themselves
to being quoted. That keeps his works alive more than anything else.

In truth I think Shakespeare is more sizzle than steak. He has the timeless
plots and the witty remarks, but if you ever sit to read the stuff it is
kind of boring. All those conniving plotters with their silly monologues are
archaic storytelling tools.

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:25:38 -0400, "Shakes The Clown"
wrote:

"Michael Vondung" I've never fully understood the fascination with
Shakespeare,
either. How many people repeat what everyone else says, without ever
having
taken a look at this fairly (language-wise) obsolete and cumbersome stuff?


As an English Lit. major, I have to agree with you 100%. Shakespeare was
probably the Spielberg of his day. He did 37 or so plays, and most if not
all of them were big hits. So for his time, he was the biggest thing in
culture. He also put just about every possible witty saying and cliche' into
his plays, so that they have lots of interesting lines that lend themselves
to being quoted. That keeps his works alive more than anything else.

In truth I think Shakespeare is more sizzle than steak. He has the timeless
plots and the witty remarks, but if you ever sit to read the stuff it is
kind of boring. All those conniving plotters with their silly monologues are
archaic storytelling tools.

Wait a second. This is our infamous Bellsouth fake poster.

Take a close look.

This means that what you have just read is a spoof.

Sam Sloan

"Shakes The Clown" wrote in message
...

In truth I think Shakespeare is more sizzle than steak. He has the
timeless
plots and the witty remarks, but if you ever sit to read the stuff it is
kind of boring. All those conniving plotters with their silly monologues
are
archaic storytelling tools.

And more often the plots are borrowed as in Othello. Sizzle? You bet. I have
wondered what those folks in the back row thought they heard when a
character described a certain women as cunning.

Sam Sloan wrote:
Schiller has
written more than one hundred chess books and the fact that he has
received two negative reviews means little.

This is as absurd as Parr's argument that the 25 or so errors Winter
pointed out in Evans' work are the only ones in the Evans canon.

Chess One wrote:

Speaking of Orwell, he wrote the same thing about Edward Wallace in a letter
to Geoffrey Gorer in May 1936, he says:

"I don't know if you ever read Elmer Rice's /A Voyage to Purilia./ it
contains a most interesting analysis of certain conventions - taken for
granted & never even mentioned - existing in the ordinary film. It would be
interesting & I believe valuable to work out the underlying beliefs &
general imaginative background of a writer like Edgar Wallace. But of course
that's the kind of thing nobody will ever print."

We are witness to a first. Innes has actually provided a source for a
"quotation". And amazingly, it's from Orwell!

I rather like Shakespeare.

I don't know Eric Schiller, but I own several of his books and have
seen others and they are not books I would recommend to any chess
player of any level, not even 1000. Schiller's books are often so bad
that one has to wonder how muych time he actually puts into them.
There are much better books out there for players of any level.

- Geof Strayer

wrote:
I rather like Shakespeare.

I do as well.

I don't know Eric Schiller, but I own several of his books and have
seen others and they are not books I would recommend to any chess
player of any level, not even 1000. Schiller's books are often so bad
that one has to wonder how muych time he actually puts into them.
There are much better books out there for players of any level.

- Geof Strayer