Thank you for making this entertaining and lucid video. It is ironic that you are so clear about ambiguity and tout its benefits - e.g. creation of new meanings/insights from old images/words. In economics, logic, mathematics, etc. ambiguity is to be avoided or at least resolved. Nice to get a new slant on ambiguity. I have ordered this book from my library system..
The second example of ambiguity is so poignant and moving. On the one hand, we can view time as a succession of years speeding by, the length of our past life, never to return. On the other, time expands to make an instant seem eternal as if time stands still on a beautiful spring morning. What is time? It is both and these two conflicting images takes your breath away.
RE: Type One: "Bare ruined choirs, where late the sweet birds sang" refers to the destruction of monasteries during the Reformation (thanks to Henry VIII). The choirs are "ruined" and "bare" because the place of worship no longer exists. That's why birds, not people are singing there. The only hope for a remainder of what was destroyed is in the birds' song. But even that song has no future. There is no promise that the singing will return. "Late" means recent past, or a past still with us.
Reminder: Note to my LITR 250 Literary Theory Class at SUNY Oneonta.: Please ignore this video. It's a nice attempt, but many of the definitions are either incomplete or inaccurate. So, for example: the video defines Type 3 as a "pun", but--while Type 3 includes puns--that is by no means a complete definition. And Type 4 is definitely not a "Freudian Slip". The definition of Type 5 is also incorrect...you get the idea. There is a lot of misunderstanding of Empson, here. So, if you rely on this video, you will be misled.
Those boys boxing are minoan, not sumerian. Otherwise, spectacular video! Was this put together specifically for this youtube posting? It looks like a huge amount of work. It's really great.
Note to my LITR 250 Literary Theory Class at SUNY Oneonta.: Please ignore this video. It's a nice attempt, but many of the definitions are either incomplete or inaccurate. So, for example: the video defines Type 3 as a "pun", but--while Type 3 includes puns--that is by no means a complete definition. And Type 4 is not a "Freudian Slip". The definition of Type 5 is also incorrect...you get the idea. There is a lot of misunderstanding of Empson, here. So, if you rely on this video, you will be misled.
Maybe this video got better towards the end but after one and a half minutes I had only learnt - to my surprise - that Empson was a "guy" and that his wife had affairs. Not very insightful or relevant to the supposed subject matter (which is serious and not best suited to a magazine/red top approach.
Reminder: Note to my LITR 250 Literary Theory Class at SUNY Oneonta.: Please ignore this video. It's a nice attempt, but many of the definitions are either incomplete or inaccurate. So, for example: the video defines Type 3 as a "pun", but--while Type 3 includes puns--that is by no means a complete definition. And Type 4 is definitely not a "Freudian Slip". The definition of Type 5 is also incorrect...you get the idea. There is a lot of misunderstanding of Empson, here. So, if you rely on this video, you will be misled.
Not one of your students, but trying to read this book as an layperson is killing me. What if you did a video with more complete explanations? It doesn’t have to be your lectures, but I could use a more thorough breakdown.
THANK YOU.
I cannot express how much I liked this video
This deserves more attention! Really good video
Definitely going to have to revisit this one. Thank you for sharing
This is exquisite. The art style and presentation is so good
Thank you!
In describing what ambiguity #7 does, the phrase "to distill human ignorance into a grace of style" employs ambiguity #7.
I enjoyed everything about this, the tone, the pictures, the information. So great. I'd watch a whole series of these. Just great
Thank you
Well done. Very interesting thoughts on Empson and presented in an entertaining and most clever manner.
Thanks a lot❤❤
I got tripped out lol
trippy presentation !
Here is a better pun on the word fly courtesy of Noam Chomsky. "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."
Thank you for making this entertaining and lucid video. It is ironic that you are so clear about ambiguity and tout its benefits - e.g. creation of new meanings/insights from old images/words. In economics, logic, mathematics, etc. ambiguity is to be avoided or at least resolved. Nice to get a new slant on ambiguity. I have ordered this book from my library system..
Wow this is amazing!
The second example of ambiguity is so poignant and moving. On the one hand, we can view time as a succession of years speeding by, the length of our past life, never to return. On the other, time expands to make an instant seem eternal as if time stands still on a beautiful spring morning. What is time? It is both and these two conflicting images takes your breath away.
thank you for watching
Wow, I was about to read 7 Types of Ambiguity and you invited me to do it even more than I wanted to. Thanks, great summary!!!
Amazing!
Great video, beautiful animation. Reminded me of Linklater 's Waking Life.
That was my first thought!
Very good! Very funny! And very enlightening!
RE: Type One: "Bare ruined choirs, where late the sweet birds sang" refers to the destruction of monasteries during the Reformation (thanks to Henry VIII). The choirs are "ruined" and "bare" because the place of worship no longer exists. That's why birds, not people are singing there. The only hope for a remainder of what was destroyed is in the birds' song. But even that song has no future. There is no promise that the singing will return. "Late" means recent past, or a past still with us.
Hey! This really, really helped me understand Empson's taxonomy of ambiguity. Thank you so much! ♥️ Great work.
Reminder: Note to my LITR 250 Literary Theory Class at SUNY Oneonta.: Please ignore this video. It's a nice attempt, but many of the definitions are either incomplete or inaccurate. So, for example: the video defines Type 3 as a "pun", but--while Type 3 includes puns--that is by no means a complete definition. And Type 4 is definitely not a "Freudian Slip". The definition of Type 5 is also incorrect...you get the idea. There is a lot of misunderstanding of Empson, here. So, if you rely on this video, you will be misled.
Good job! thankyou -
Wonderfully summarised! Thank you.
Vividly explained
Those boys boxing are minoan, not sumerian. Otherwise, spectacular video! Was this put together specifically for this youtube posting? It looks like a huge amount of work. It's really great.
thanks, lts! it was made for posting for fellow fans, and i wish i knew the difference between minoan and sumerian.
Isn't ambiguity #7 what some people call MUTUAL ARISING?
I haven't heard of that, but we could use some mutual arising right about now!
Note to my LITR 250 Literary Theory Class at SUNY Oneonta.: Please ignore this video. It's a nice attempt, but many of the definitions are either incomplete or inaccurate. So, for example: the video defines Type 3 as a "pun", but--while Type 3 includes puns--that is by no means a complete definition. And Type 4 is not a "Freudian Slip". The definition of Type 5 is also incorrect...you get the idea. There is a lot of misunderstanding of Empson, here. So, if you rely on this video, you will be misled.
Maybe this video got better towards the end but after one and a half minutes I had only learnt - to my surprise - that Empson was a "guy" and that his wife had affairs. Not very insightful or relevant to the supposed subject matter (which is serious and not best suited to a magazine/red top approach.
+rsm33
I agree, but I think it is interesting that so many people want brief biographies of a writer, painter, critic, what have you.
Unfortunately, it is filled with mistakes. Don't use it to try to understand Empson.
will you explain some of the mistakes?
Probably you are right, but taken for what it is - a 10 minute summary of a long and complex book - is definitely a great video.
Reminder: Note to my LITR 250 Literary Theory Class at SUNY Oneonta.: Please ignore this video. It's a nice attempt, but many of the definitions are either incomplete or inaccurate. So, for example: the video defines Type 3 as a "pun", but--while Type 3 includes puns--that is by no means a complete definition. And Type 4 is definitely not a "Freudian Slip". The definition of Type 5 is also incorrect...you get the idea. There is a lot of misunderstanding of Empson, here. So, if you rely on this video, you will be misled.
Not one of your students, but trying to read this book as an layperson is killing me. What if you did a video with more complete explanations? It doesn’t have to be your lectures, but I could use a more thorough breakdown.