why does everyone use complicated, unnatural sentences in a wild

>>86521509
East coast elite ivy league programmers bias

>>86521570
What's weird is tons of people who rate shows with impeccable dialogue (say, wire or sopranos) also rate Deadwood.

>>86521509
Because it wasn't supposed to be period correct, it was supposed to help convey their inteligence while contrasting it with a cocksucker or two. And swearengen talked a hell of a lot fancier than the horse guy.

>>86521888
you're telling be the bad writing was on purpose?

>>86522205
It's supposed to be Shakespearean you retard.

>>86522279
lel

>>86521509

People were better at speaking then because they didn't have talmudvision turning them into retards.

>>86522520
>>/pol/

>>86521509
is this a "trash /tv/ tricked you into watching" thread? thank lord that this shit got cancelled.

>>86521570
what is programmer's bias?

>>86522831
he doesn't know, but it sounded smart in his head

>>86522279
This guy gets it

>>86522989
commoners construct elaborate monologues in Shakespeare? I've only read Henry the 5th, and it was always nobles and shit.

>>86523112
You know it's drama right? They didn't say fuck and cunt back then either.

>>86523322
just explain how lowly characters speaking like aristocrats is shakespearean

>>86523481
You seem to expect the show to be realistic for some reason

File: 1487487096347.gif (1MB, 250x233px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x233px

>>86522205
>bad writing
fucking hoopleheads

>>86523649
the shakespearean comment interested me, you can't give a straight answer. Sad!

you guys are stupid, read a letter from a common soldier in the civil war. It reads like deadwood.
Also the words and phrasing they use was common at the time, you only perceive it as pretentious because they have fallen out of use and only try hards talk like that now

>>86523732
I didn't even write that

films, etc are about the audience viewing, not the actual events in the films, etc

historical versimilitude within the films, etc is only tweaked in relation to the viewer

>>86524111
like how donald sutherland was a hippy in world war II just because the movie came out in the 60s

>>86523732
Shakespearean in the way that all of the writing is beautiful. The language isn't mean to convey how articulate or educated a character it is, instead their ability to wax lyrical is better used to elucidate their characters thoughts and feelings. Kind of like a more poetic version of exposition I guess, though that is a pretty rough comparison. Not many people could pull off that type of writing, in fact, most writers starting off who attempt to shoehorn entire thesauruses into their novels are dismissed as amateurs, lacking any real ability to communicate their characters to the audience, instead relying on vocabulary instead of using the narrative and natural dialogue to draw in the reader.

>>86523772
Thanks, at least someone doesn't get all their information from 4chan. Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death discusses how people would give talks and debates that spanned hours and hours, I was always surprised that not only could people pay attention that long, but that the speakers would have to have completely threshed out ideas to be able to talk so long. There seems to be a bit of a myth that people were simple back then, but blacksmiths would pay a boy to read contemporary (classics to us) literature to them while they worked.

It's a decent book if people are curious about the nature of communication back then.

>>86523772
This. The locution of that era was replete with archaic idioms carried over from the Old World.