Post by rootbeerpies on Feb 11, 2018 5:45:03 GMT
If I had any idea how to delete a thread I created, I'd do so.
However, I don't.
Thus, kindly ignore my previous thread "Movies, Grammar and 'Excitement's Crave'".
Green apple pointed out some flaws in my logic, which I thank him for.
After several hours of analysis, I'm reposting my essential point in condensed form, herein.
If I'm still wrong, kindly ignore this thread as well! ;
Here we go.
To me, the poem's title makes little syntactic sense (as spoken or written language).
"Crave" is a verb, "craving" is a noun. Thus, ladies crave excitement and John has a craving for crawfish.
"Excitement" is a noun, too. Yet, EAR uses it to signify possession, and thus agency, as if it signifies a person or thing capable of intent.
John may crave excitement but "excitement" can't crave anything. When we substitute "John" for "excitement," we see the effect more clearly:
"John's craving" (for crawfish) makes sense, "John's crave" does not, and, "excitement's crave" means even less.
(White Castle's conflation of "crave" and "craving" has muddied our nation's syntactical waters).
To me, this demonstrates EAR's inability to parse language correctly, proof of a cognitive processing deficit.
As a result, I wondered: does the phrase exist elsewhere? If so, EAR might have borrowed it from another source, mangling its syntax in the process.
And, if he did, it might provide a linguistic footprint, of sorts (size 9, waffle pattern).
Lo and behold:
Two movies share his title: "Ladies Crave Excitement" (1935) and "The Lady Craved Excitement" (1950). Of the two, the latter is particularly resonant.
In it, a female singer drags her male counterpart through a series of dangerous situations culminating in their discovery of a smuggling ring.
Did EAR see it during his childhood or adolescence, using it to fuel his fantasies about women and dangerous situations?
If psychopaths lack empathy (and thus, a moral compass), they also lack a means to distinguish fantasy from reality.
Thus, EAR could have transposed himself into the movie, conflating his life w the character's, viewing his actions as an extension of hers.
To me, it's as plausible as any other theory about the poem.
Which begs the question:
Does a database exist of N. Californian TV station broadcasts from, say, 1955 to 1977?
With such a list, we might pinpoint what media market (San Jose, Sacramento, etc) EAR lived in and when.
Unfortunately, that's as far as I've travelled at the moment.
Such a database might exist. Undoubtably, though, it doesn't, requiring someone to compile one from scratch.
For starters, someone might contact the copyright media holder for each film.
Q: Do I feel motivated to do so?
A: I do not (at the moment).
In fact, I'd much rather take credit for the idea and watch someone else do the legwork.
I'm preternaturally lazy like that ;
Feel free to share your thoughts!
Thx, Jason
However, I don't.
Thus, kindly ignore my previous thread "Movies, Grammar and 'Excitement's Crave'".
Green apple pointed out some flaws in my logic, which I thank him for.
After several hours of analysis, I'm reposting my essential point in condensed form, herein.
If I'm still wrong, kindly ignore this thread as well! ;
Here we go.
To me, the poem's title makes little syntactic sense (as spoken or written language).
"Crave" is a verb, "craving" is a noun. Thus, ladies crave excitement and John has a craving for crawfish.
"Excitement" is a noun, too. Yet, EAR uses it to signify possession, and thus agency, as if it signifies a person or thing capable of intent.
John may crave excitement but "excitement" can't crave anything. When we substitute "John" for "excitement," we see the effect more clearly:
"John's craving" (for crawfish) makes sense, "John's crave" does not, and, "excitement's crave" means even less.
(White Castle's conflation of "crave" and "craving" has muddied our nation's syntactical waters).
To me, this demonstrates EAR's inability to parse language correctly, proof of a cognitive processing deficit.
As a result, I wondered: does the phrase exist elsewhere? If so, EAR might have borrowed it from another source, mangling its syntax in the process.
And, if he did, it might provide a linguistic footprint, of sorts (size 9, waffle pattern).
Lo and behold:
Two movies share his title: "Ladies Crave Excitement" (1935) and "The Lady Craved Excitement" (1950). Of the two, the latter is particularly resonant.
In it, a female singer drags her male counterpart through a series of dangerous situations culminating in their discovery of a smuggling ring.
Did EAR see it during his childhood or adolescence, using it to fuel his fantasies about women and dangerous situations?
If psychopaths lack empathy (and thus, a moral compass), they also lack a means to distinguish fantasy from reality.
Thus, EAR could have transposed himself into the movie, conflating his life w the character's, viewing his actions as an extension of hers.
To me, it's as plausible as any other theory about the poem.
Which begs the question:
Does a database exist of N. Californian TV station broadcasts from, say, 1955 to 1977?
With such a list, we might pinpoint what media market (San Jose, Sacramento, etc) EAR lived in and when.
Unfortunately, that's as far as I've travelled at the moment.
Such a database might exist. Undoubtably, though, it doesn't, requiring someone to compile one from scratch.
For starters, someone might contact the copyright media holder for each film.
Q: Do I feel motivated to do so?
A: I do not (at the moment).
In fact, I'd much rather take credit for the idea and watch someone else do the legwork.
I'm preternaturally lazy like that ;
Feel free to share your thoughts!
Thx, Jason