| The first excerpt represents the past or something you must release, and is drawn from Four Arthurian Romances by Chretien DeTroyes: lover. Their anguish and distress cause her to lose her senses
and her colour, and her grief and sorrow are increased because
she dares not openly show a trace of her distress. She shut up
her grief within her heart. Had any one looked at her, he could
have seen by the expression of her face what agony she was in;
but every one was so engrossed with his own sorrow that he had no
care for another's grief. Each one lamented his own loss. For
they find the river bank covered with their relatives and
friends, who had been wounded or roughly treated. Each one wept
for his own heavy and bitter loss: here is a son weeping for a
father, there a father for a son; one swoons at the sight of his
|
The second excerpt represents the present or the deciding factor of the moment, and is drawn from The Art of Writing by Robert Louis Stevenson: is new, forgets what is old, and becomes truly blasphemous
and indecent himself. New truth is only useful to supplement
the old; rough truth is only wanted to expand, not to
destroy, our civil and often elegant conventions. He who
cannot judge had better stick to fiction and the daily
papers. There he will get little harm, and, in the first at
least, some good.
Close upon the back of my discovery of Whitman, I came under
the influence of Herbert Spencer. No more persuasive rabbi
exists, and few better. How much of his vast structure will
bear the touch of time, how much is clay and how much brass,
|
The third excerpt represents the future or something you must embrace, and is drawn from Protagoras by Plato: imagine, by me; for I only asked the question; Protagoras gave the answer.'
And suppose that he turned to you and said, 'Is this true, Protagoras? and
do you maintain that one part of virtue is unlike another, and is this your
position?'--how would you answer him?
I could not help acknowledging the truth of what he said, Socrates.
Well then, Protagoras, we will assume this; and now supposing that he
proceeded to say further, 'Then holiness is not of the nature of justice,
nor justice of the nature of holiness, but of the nature of unholiness; and
holiness is of the nature of the not just, and therefore of the unjust, and
the unjust is the unholy': how shall we answer him? I should certainly
answer him on my own behalf that justice is holy, and that holiness is
|
