[readers]Jack London archaic?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JiriLindovsky

Junior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Czech
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Good afternoon.
Here, in the Czech Republic, there were published 3 nice readers by Jack London. It looks terrific, the text has huge comments, so there is 100% comprehension. BUT, for example:Call of the wild is 100% the same as original text(I had a look at the Internet).
So , do I study archaic language(London wrote this 100 years ago)?
No mater how superb is the comment - style, no matter whether I enjoy the comprehension, isn't this wast of time? And what if I acquire archaic languge habits- big danger.
First I was full of joy, now I am confused about the problem.

Thanks in advance for any help,

Jiri Lindovsky
 

TheParser

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Good afternoon.
Here, in the Czech Republic, there were published 3 nice readers by Jack London. It looks terrific, the text has huge comments, so there is 100% comprehension. BUT, for example:Call of the wild is 100% the same as original text(I had a look at the Internet).
So , do I study archaic language(London wrote this 100 years ago)?
No mater how superb is the comment - style, no matter whether I enjoy the comprehension, isn't this wast of time? And what if I acquire archaic languge habits- big danger.
First I was full of joy, now I am confused about the problem.

Thanks in advance for any help,

Jiri Lindovsky


***** NOT A TEACHER

***** ONLY MY OPINION


Jiri,

I think that the problem may lie in your definition of the word


"archaic." Usually, a book that was written "only" a hundred

years ago is not considered "archaic." I admit that I know

very little about Mr. London's writings, but I have heard that

it was vigorous and effective. In other words, if you wrote the

way he wrote, most people would praise your writing. (Of course,

a few things have changed in the last 100 years in vocabulary, but

I imagine that the grammar would mostly reflect current grammar.)

Of course, if you wrote the way Shakespeare wrote, then we would

call that "archaic," and many people would have difficulty in understanding

what you were writing.

Hopefully, someone who is a fan of Jack London's novels will answer

you. I am very eager to know something about Mr. London's grammar.

Thank you
 

riquecohen

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
Brazil
Hopefully, someone who is a fan of Jack London's novels will answer
you. I am very eager to know something about Mr. London's grammar.
While I'm not a big Jack London fan, I think that he is a great story-teller and "The Call of the Wild" is a great dog story. It is readily accessible and there's nothing "archaic" about either the vocabulary or the grammar. The only difficulty a learner might encounter would be in deciphering the French-Canadian accent of François. Reading it is definitely not a waste of time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top