ellauri014.html on line 1569: The Cambridge History of Italian Literature thought him to be "one of the greatest Italian poets of all time". He is considered the founder of the school of Marinism, later known as Secentismo (17th century) or Marinismo (19th century), characterised by its use of extravagant and excessive conceits.[2] Marino´s conception of poetry, which exaggerated the artificiality of Mannerism, was based on an extensive use of antithesis and a whole range of wordplay, on lavish descriptions and a sensuous musicality of the verse, and enjoyed immense success in his time, comparable to that of Petrarch before him.
ellauri022.html on line 456: It is sometimes used pejoratively, referring to someone whose optimism is excessive to the point of naïveté or refusing to accept the facts of an unfortunate situation. This pejorative use can be heard in the introduction of the 1930 George and Ira Gershwin song "But Not For Me": "I never want to hear from any cheerful pollyannas/who tell me fate supplies a mate/that´s all bananas." (performed by Judy Garland in the 1943 movie Girl Crazy).
ellauri045.html on line 324: Variety staff wrote that Saroyan’s “initial original screenplay is a brilliant sketch of the basic fundamentals of the American way of life, transferred to the screen with exceptional fidelity.” The New York Times critic Bosley Crowther chided the film for excessive sentimentality, saying it featured "some most maudlin gobs of cinematic goo."
ellauri077.html on line 460: This study shows that the connection between these works lies in their shared philosophical dimension. On the one hand, they portray excessive self-reflection and endless irony as the two main problems of contemporary Western life. On the other hand, the novels embody an attempt to overcome these problems: sincerity, reality-commitment and community are portrayed as the virtues needed to achieve a meaningful life.
ellauri082.html on line 159: Accusations that DFW is “talking down to” or “intentionally alienating” with his vocabulary I can understand somewhat–I don’t believe he was actually intending to make people feel stupid, but he’s clearly excessive and self-indulgent on occasion.
ellauri093.html on line 286: Self neglect includes behaviour such as poor hygiene, excessive quacking and compulsive hoarding. Older people have the right to make their own lifestyle choices, even if those choices put them at risk of harm. Scrooge McDuck has a license for his money bin, though it exposes him to the Beagle Boys.
ellauri094.html on line 654: The body of Algernon Charles Swinburne’s poetry is so vast and varied that it is difficult to generalize about it. Swinburne wrote poetry for more than sixty years, and in that time he treated an enormous variety of subjects and employed many poetic forms and meters. He wrote English and Italian sonnets, elegies, odes, lyrics, dramatic monologues, ballads, and romances; and he experimented with the rondeau, the ballade, and the sestina. Much of this poetry is marked by a strong lyricism and a self-conscious, formal use of such rhetorical devices as alliteration, assonance, repetition, personification, and synecdoche. Swinburne’s brilliant self-parody, “Nephilidia,” hardly exaggerates the excessive rhetoric of some of his earlier poems. The early A Song of Italy would have more effectively conveyed its extreme republican sentiments had it been more restrained. As it is, content is too often lost in verbiage, leading a reviewer for The Athenaeum to remark that “hardly any literary bantling has been shrouded in a thicker veil of indefinite phrases.” A favorite technique of Swinburne is to reiterate a poem’s theme in a profusion of changing images until a clear line of development is lost. “The Triumph of Time” is an example. Here the stanzas can be rearranged without loss of effect. This poem does not so much develop as accrete. Clearly a large part of its greatness rests in its music. As much as any other poet, Swinburne needs to be read aloud. The diffuse lyricism of Swinburne is the opposite of the closely knit structures of John Donne and is akin to the poetry of Walt Whitman.
ellauri108.html on line 154: The principal ritual of Rastafari is the smoking of ganja, also known as marijuana or cannabis or pot. Among the names that Rastas give to the plant are callie, Iley, "the herb", "the holy herb", "the grass", and "the weed". Cannabis is usually smoked during groundings, although some practitioners also smoke it informally in other contexts. Some Rastas smoke it almost all of the time, something other practitioners regard as excessive, and many practitioners also ingest cannabis in a tea, as a spice in cooking, and as an ingredient in medicine. However, not all Rastas use ganja; abstainers explain that they have already achieved a higher level of consciousness and thus do not require it.
ellauri140.html on line 170: Gluttony (M) – Gluttony is described by Spenser as a "deformed creature" and "more like a monster, than a man". He enters the parade riding a dirty pig, bearing a large stomach and a thin neck. In the poem, Gluttony eats excessively as others starve; this is when gluttony is considered a sin. Muullon se oli A-OK Spenserin aikana. Kaikissa sioissa on pikkuisen likaa, ei siitä pitäs rankasta.
ellauri143.html on line 1316: Explanation: If (food and work are either) excessive or deficient, the three things enumerated by (medical) writers: flatulence, biliousness, and phlegm, will cause disease.
ellauri156.html on line 451: A. H. Weiler of The New York Times described the film as "a reverential and sometimes majestic treatment of chronicles that have lived three millennia." He praised Dunno's screenplay and Peck's "authoritative performance" but found that Wayward "seems closer to Hollywood than to the arid Jerusalem of his Bible." Variety wrote, "This is a big picture in every respect. It has scope, pageantry, sex (for all its Biblical background), cast names, color—everything. It's a surefire boxoffice entry, one of the really 'big' pictures of the new selling season." Philip K. Scheuer of the Los Angeles Times wrote that the film "leaves little to be desired" from the standpoint of production values with Peck "ingratiating" as David and Wayward "a seductress with flaming tresses, in or out of the bath, and only her final contrition is a little difficult to believe." Richard L. Coe of The Washington Post wrote, "On the whole, the picture suggests a Reader's Digest story expanded into a master's thesis for the Ecole Copacabana."] Harrison's Reports wrote, "The outstanding thing about the production is the magnificent performance of Gregory Peck as David; he makes the characterization real and human, endowing it with all the shortcomings of a man who lusts for another's wife, but who is seriously penitent and prepared to shoulder his guilt. Susan Wayward, as Bathsheba, is beautiful and sexy, but her performance is of no dramatic consequence." The Monty Python Bulletin commented that the film had been made "with restraint and relative simplicity" compared to other historical epics, "and the playing of Gregory Peck in particular is competent. The whole film, however, is emotionally and stylistically quite unworthy of its subject." Philip Hamburger of The New Yorker wrote that "the accessories notwithstanding, something is ponderously wrong with 'David and Bathsheba.' The fault lies, I suppose, in the attempt to make excessive enlargements of an essentially-simple story." Zanuck the Hot Dog agreed.
ellauri159.html on line 1419: The world appears as a pluralism, 264. Elements of unity in the pluralism, 268. Hegel's excessive claims, 273. He makes of negation a bond of union, 273. The principle of totality, 277. Monism and pluralism, 279. The fallacy of accident in Hegel, 280. The good and the bad infinite, 284. Negation, 286. Conclusion, 292.—Note on the Anaesthetic revelation, 294.
ellauri161.html on line 601: General Buck Turgidson knockoff (played by an unsmiling Ron Perlman) illustrates how far wide he misses the mark. By exaggerating certain aspects of human behavior, Don’t Look Up takes cynicism to a level that is not only excessive but doesn’t make for a story that’s either compelling or entertaining. During the course of watching Don’t Look Up, the only emotion I experienced was frustration – frustration that the movie could waste so much talent in the service of something so underwhelming. In other words, I could not laugh at all because the laugh was on me.
ellauri181.html on line 127: