Steph reading WB Yeats on today's E4, Dom's love of Wuthering Heights, Eli quoting Rousseau... blimey, it's like they stole my A-level English course and shoved it in the script.
I quite like it, it's kind of unusual for a soap and good ammunition against people who say that Hollyoaks is stupid and only about pretty girls wearing tiny dresses
I don't like it. It's unrealistic. Steph is too stupid to read Yeats, and kids quote Shakespeare etc to try and sound clever without knowing what a lot of it really means. How many 15-year-olds do you know who have heard of Rousseau? The only characters where it really works is with Dom and Tina.
**************** - It is spelt definitely, not definately, definatly or in any other equally weird ways - It is would/could/should HAVE, not would/could/should OF.
Probably just the writers showing off a bit! We know Tina and Dom love 19th Century romantic novels. Newt referring to Sartre, Rousseau, Nietzsche etc. seems a little far-fetched, however!
#20 Hannah Ashworth fanclub "If one has much to put in them, a day has a hundred pockets." Forum buddies: Nikki
I was quoting shakespeare when I was 15. But I was a huge geek. I love shakespeare! I used it in conversations with my friends and they just looked at me as if to say "say what"? lol.
Founding/#1 member of the "I am thoroughly annoyed by Kress and/or Mcdean" club.
well i love all this literary stuff, anyway its about time writers gave us some culture and im sure peolple can always look up stuff on internet, bring it on shakepeare rimbaud rousseau.......
Originally posted by ilovefashion: I did Wuthering Heights last year when i was 14/15 for my English Coursework...When i was in year 9 we also did shakespeare
I wouldn't class myself as a "geek"
Studying it at school is hardly the same as randomly quoting it in everyday life. I'm at Oxford for chrissakes, and I have a degree in English and even I don't do that.
**************** - It is spelt definitely, not definately, definatly or in any other equally weird ways - It is would/could/should HAVE, not would/could/should OF.