This makes me miss Carolina so much...

[pantherclaw]

11 minutes ago, onmyown said:

pretend having a 12 year old girl.

pretend your friend wrote a song for her, and starting singing it to her.

had lyrics like sweet Carolina.

wouldn’t you be a little creeped out?

does that moral consciousness magically disappear  if it’s some other little girl and the Panthers just won a Panther game?

weird as fug bro

Pretend to know what your talking about. 

[stratocatter]

New Yorker writes about his wife. Boston Red Sox use it, which makes no sense to me really, either. Being as they are rivals with NY, it is a NYC song. Neil Diamond is about as New York as it gets.

I don't like it for the Carolinas because of all of the above. The only thing it has to do with either Carolina is Carolin. Seven letters.

Be original. Have OUR OWN tune, not one stolen from Boston.

 

 

[rippadonn]

We are the Carolinas. NOBODY has a claim on the song bigger than ours.

[Mr. Scot]

12 hours ago, GRWatcher said:

It is played after games when we win, only when we win.

I don't miss the area obviously because I live around here, but I do miss hearing the song specifically because it meant we won.

That didn't happen a lot this past season, and the way things are going it probably still won't for a while.

[Mr. Scot]

4 hours ago, Davidson Deac II said:

The lurid stuff is usually wrong but tends to stick around for a while because its more interesting.  Reality tends to be far more boring.

Yeah, not everything is meant to have a deeper meaning.

It's a joke among writers that if you ask a literary critic or literature professor to interpret the phrase "the curtains were blue" they'll go off on some big speech about how it was meant to convey melancholy or sadness in the situation. But if you ask the author, he'll say it meant "the f---ing curtains were blue".

[PantherFanInPhilly]

Call me a bad fan, but I wouldn't miss this tradition at all if they axed it. 

[Wolfcop]

I love the song, partially because it means Panthers victory and partially because I named our youngest daughter Caroline...which admittedly had a lot to do with the Panthers. 

[MHS831]

8 hours ago, SmittysLawnGuy said:

Caroline, Carolina. Doesn't seem like rocket science how they made the connection.

I think the Red Sox or someone else does it.  Explain that if you all can.

[MHS831]

13 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Yeah, not everything is meant to have a deeper meaning.

It's a joke among writers that if you ask a literary critic or literature professor to interpret the phrase "the curtains were blue" they'll go off on some big speech about how it was meant to convey melancholy or sadness in the situation. But if you ask the author, he'll say it meant "the f---ing curtains were blue".

As a former English teacher, I would argue that the discussion of the author's subconscious reasons for selecting words is worthy of exploration if it reveals the author's mindset as reflected in the tone and mood those words cause.  Poe used Lenoir and Nevermore because they rhymed, but his choice of that vowel sound was used because it reflected internal, persistent agony.  He tried several variations of rhyme and settled with that one for its onomatopoetic effect, just as he chose and all-black bird that could talk (Mr Scot knows about talking birds) as a visual metaphor for the same reason.  I mean, how popular would the poem have been if someone else wrote it?  Instead of "Quoth the raven, 'Nevermore,'" we'd get "Said the brightly-colored Macaw, 'Dat's it."

Seriously, the reason those discussions are significant is not the attempt to decide what the author meant, but to determine what makes it effective--and the artist is then examined for his conscious and subconscious choices--the human element that made it great. 

To some, it is meaningless blah, to others, it is an in-depth exploration into the psyche of an artist in a quest for all that makes life meaningful.

Or it is a dumb song and blue is easy to rhyme.

[Mr. Scot]

50 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

As a former English teacher, I would argue that the discussion of the author's subconscious reasons for selecting words is worthy of exploration if it reveals the author's mindset as reflected in the tone and mood those words cause.  Poe used Lenoir and Nevermore because they rhymed, but his choice of that vowel sound was used because it reflected internal, persistent agony.  He tried several variations of rhyme and settled with that one for its onomatopoetic effect, just as he chose and all-black bird that could talk (Mr Scot knows about talking birds) as a visual metaphor for the same reason.  I mean, how popular would the poem have been if someone else wrote it?  Instead of "Quoth the raven, 'Nevermore,'" we'd get "Said the brightly-colored Macaw, 'Dat's it."

Seriously, the reason those discussions are significant is not the attempt to decide what the author meant, but to determine what makes it effective--and the artist is then examined for his conscious and subconscious choices--the human element that made it great. 

To some, it is meaningless blah, to others, it is an in-depth exploration into the psyche of an artist in a quest for all that makes life meaningful.

Or it is a dumb song and blue is easy to rhyme.

Wouldn't claim that sometimes there are authors who are very specific about these things, but I think you find more of those in classic literature than today. I'd also add it's probably more prevalent in poetry (such as Poe's) than storytelling.

I think most authors are just trying to write a good story, not necessarily add hidden clues like you'd find in a National Treasure movie.

[MHS831]

37 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Wouldn't claim that sometimes there are authors who are very specific about these things, but I think you find more of those in classic literature than today. I'd also add it's probably more prevalent in poetry (such as Poe's) than storytelling.

I think most authors are just trying to write a good story, not necessarily add hidden clues like you'd find in a National Treasure movie.

Just joking, but if you were in my class, I would have you defend that if you could---the discussion is what I was going for, not answers--to make people think.  I used Socratic questioning a lot--sorta like "look at the birdie" when you get a photo taken.  The birdie was never the objective.  You know this--I was just explaining the other side.  We teach thinking more than we do literature.  So if I can use lit to make you think critically and solve problems, I do not care what the answer is, as the teacher. 

I think I just derailed the thread.  Sorry everyone.

 

[Mr. Scot]

35 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Just joking, but if you were in my class, I would have you defend that if you could---the discussion is what I was going for, not answers--to make people think.  I used Socratic questioning a lot--sorta like "look at the birdie" when you get a photo taken.  The birdie was never the objective.  You know this--I was just explaining the other side.  We teach thinking more than we do literature.  So if I can use lit to make you think critically and solve problems, I do not care what the answer is, as the teacher. 

I think I just derailed the thread.  Sorry everyone.

Nah, it's valid.

I get flack sometimes for asking questions and raising points that don't necessarily coincide with my point of view. It's not just about pushing what I think. It's about having a discussion.

Some folks don't get that, I suppose.

[Move the Panthers to Raleigh]

We should use “Carolina on My Mind” by James Taylor. Way more relevant, but it’s possible Tepper has never heard it.

[The Huddler]

yall gunna send me some thoughts and prayers too? fug off