I should like to write a dirge on them, since their lavish use in the form of knocking, hammering, and tumbling things about has made the whole of my life a daily torment. Certainly there are people, nay, very many, who will smile at this, because they are not sensitive to noise; it is precisely these people, however, who are not sensitive to argument, thought, poetry or art, in short, to any kind of intellectual impression: a fact to be assigned to the coarse quality and strong texture of their brain tissues. On the other hand, in the biographies or in other records of the personal utterances of almost all great writers, I find complaints of the pain that noise has occasioned to intellectual men. For example, in the case of Kant, Goethe, Lichtenberg, Jean Paul; and indeed when no mention is made of the matter it is merely because the context did not lead up to it. I should explain the subject we are treating in this way: If a big diamond is cut up into pieces, it immediately loses its value as a whole; or if an army is scattered or divided into small bodies, it loses all its power; and in the same way a great intellect has no more power than an ordinary one as soon as it is interrupted, disturbed, distracted, or diverted; for its superiority entails that it concentrates all its strength on one point and object, just as a concave mirror concentrates all the rays of light thrown upon it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.112.128 (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Determining whether something is "good" or "bad" is subjective and dependent on context. However, since these readability questions keep getting posted here, here's a link to a site that may help you determine it for yourself. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm sorry to say this but, in my opinion, this is very bad prose. It's almost impossible for me to determine the argument you're making. The text is overly florid, with so many metaphors that your point is almost completely obscured. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being very honest and direct to the point Cucumber Mike! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.112.128 (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a Russian saying goes: "Be simpler and you'll attract people".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be noted that the passage above is a translation from an essay by Arthur Schopenhauer called "On Noise". Looie496 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So here is the original text: [1] (first half of first paragraph) and the original English translation: [2]. Schopenhauer's texts were highly esteemed by his contemporaries (see de:Schopenhauer#Wirkung und Rezeption). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's amusing but I like Saunders' translation, I've comprehended it from the first try. Indeed something is wrong with the above reworking by 112.205.112.128, but I do not know what exactly.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest single problem is the absence of the first sentence, clarifying what is meant by "them". Otherwise, "I should like to write a dirge on them" is rather unclear, and you are off to a bad start. Nevertheless, I understood it first time (roughly speaking) because, having read Looie's post before the OP's, I knew the basic subject matter. I also thought it was reasonably eloquent, but I was not at all reading from behind a veil of ignorance. It needs help in parts, but looks like a valiant effort, if the OP did it straight from German. IBE (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question removed - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your question. Whilst we are generally happy to offer limited advice on English, we do not do people's homework for them, and we are not a proof reading service. I note that you have posted the same text elsewhere on the net asking people to read your 'English Essay', and hence I suspect this is homework. If you disagree with what I have done, please discuss it on the talk page (click 'discussion' at the top of this page). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the removed passage of being more Schopenhauer (see the question above this one.) Many continental philosophers were difficult writers, and translations of difficult writers tend to be even more difficult than the originals. Looie496 (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What did you mean by "more difficult than the originals", Looie? Are you referring to the process of writing, which can sometimes be agonizingly slow? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm referring to the process of reading. If you've ever tried to read Kant in English translation you would probably get the idea. If you start with obscurely written stuff in the original language and translate it as directly as possible, you end up with something even more obscurely written. Looie496 (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are the Hangul in http://www.twayair.com/img/V2/main2/copyright.gif ? I'm trying to get the street address for a photo request Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]