Differences between Classicism and Romanticism

[purchase_link id=”25524″ text=”Purchase” style=”button” color=”orange”]


Generally, ‘Classicism’ was the collection of the standards or pattern embodied in the literature, art, or architecture of ancient Greece and Rome. In other words, it meant following traditional standards (as of simplicity, self-control, and proportion) that were universally and permanently appropriate. Broadly, Classicism meant clearness, elegance, symmetry, and repose produced by attention to traditional forms. It was, sometimes, synonymous with excellence or artistic quality of high distinction. More precisely, the term meant the respect and following of Greek and Roman literature, art, and architecture. Because the principles of Classicism came from the rules and practices of the ancients, the term came to mean the devotion to specific academic standards.

In the 18th century, ‘Romanticism’ appeared as a creative, literary, and scholarly movement; it actually began in Europe and  was at its summit in most areas in the estimated period from 1798 to 1832 (some historians say- from 1800 to 1840). It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution and was also a revolt against aristocratic social and political norms of the Neo-classical Age (Neo-classicism) or the ‘Age of Enlightenment’; it was also against the scientific interpretation of nature. Many critics mention that the Romantic Movement appeared in Germany, which soon spread to England as well as France, however, the main source of inspiration came from the events and ideologies of the French Revolution. Other than this, even the industrial revolution which began during the same period is also said to be responsible for the development of this movement. Though Romantic elements were found in art and literature since several centuries, it was the publication of ‘Lyrical Ballads’ by Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1798 that marked the beginning of the Romantic Period; it emphasised on the imagination and emotions, and marked especially in English literature by sensibility and the use of autobiographical material, an admiration of the primitive and the common man, an appreciation of external nature, an interest in the remote, a liking for melancholy, and the use in poetry of older verse forms. This period was (and still is) called the second creative period of English literature (Elizabethan Age is the first). The literature of this period was highly poetical and it was the golden age of the lyric.

Differences between Classicism and Romanticism:

Toward the end of the eighteenth-century, Romanticism emerged as a response to Classicism. Even though this change was gradual, it transformed everything from art and philosophy to education and science. While the Classicists thought of the world as having a rigid and strict structure, the romanticists thought of the world as a place to express their ideas and beliefs. The Romanticists and the Classicists differed in their views of the relationship between an individual and society, their views of nature and the relationship between reason and imagination. The particular differences between Classicism and Romanticism are-


Classicism emphasised on ‘reason’ and ‘restraint’.

Romanticism emphasised on ‘imagination’ and ‘passion’.


Classicism followed the three unities of time, place and action.

Romanticism only followed the unity of action, but does not follow the unities of time, place.


Classicism used strict, rigid and logical diction and theme.

Romanticism used simple diction of common men from their everyday life.


The Classicists thought that the world has a rigid and stern structure.

The Romanticists thought that the world is a place to express their ideas and beliefs.


Classicism was based on the idea that nature and human nature could be understood by reason and thought. The Classicists believed that nature was a self-contained machine, like a watch, whose laws of operation could be logically understood.

Romanticism viewed nature as mysterious and ever changing. The Romantic writers believed that nature is a forever changing living life form, whose laws we will never fully understand.


The Classicists thought that it was literature’s function to show the everyday values of humanity and the laws of human existence. Their idea was that Classicism supported and defended tradition, often to the point of opposing change, because tradition seemed a dependable testing ground for those laws; human potential is limited.

As for the Romanticists, they wrote about how man has no boundaries and endless possibilities. The Romantics emphasised the human potential for social progress and spiritual growth. Human potential is not limited. As Emerson asked, “Who,” “can set bounds to the possibilities of man?”


In the end, Classicism indicates the civilization of antiquity from Ancient Greece and Rome. In Classical era, it believed in thought and reason. Meanwhile, Romanticism derives from ‘romance’ – associated with imaginative literature and the free play of imagination. Each of these eras shares parallel and distinctive traits that had philosophical and cultural changes, which impacted musical styles and innovations.

Works Cited:

Ferber, Michael. 2010. Romanticism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Kallendorf, Craig. A Companion to the Classical Tradition. Books.google.com. Retrieved 2012-05-06.

Smith, Logan Pearsall (1924) Four words: romantic, originality, creative, genius. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

[purchase_link id=”25524″ text=”Purchase” style=”button” color=”orange”]

Creative Writers, See How Much You Know on This Quiz

[purchase_link id=”25524″ text=”Purchase” style=”button” color=”orange”]

Creative writing is so much more than stringing your words together in the proper order. It is the wondrous transport by which you place your own thoughts and fears into the hearts and minds of others. How much do you know about writing? Test your knowledge, and check your answers in the bottom half of the article.

1. The main climax scene is called the ________
2. The main idea of the entire story is called the ________
3. How you phrase your thoughts is called your writing _______
4. The four kinds of conflict are _________
5. Name the four points of view.
6. Name the two kinds of voice.
7. Another word for people “speaking” is _______
8. The first paragraph should set the ________
9. Developing a character is called _________
10. Making the readers see the setting in their minds is ________
11. Use _______, don’t tell.
12. When you have finished writing, the final step is _______
13. The end of the story is called the __________
14. Fantasy, horror and romance are three different ____________
15. Don’t split an ___________
16. Wordiness is called _________
17. A person who writes an article for someone else and receives no byline is called a ________
18. A writer’s pseudonym is his _________ name
19. A writer sends a ________ letter to see if the editor wants to buy his work
20. When a writer submits the same story to more than one place at the same time, it is called a _________ ______________


1a. The main climax scene is called the plot.
2a. The main idea of the entire story is called the theme.
3a. How you phrase your thoughts is called your writing style.
4a. The four kinds of conflict are man against man, man against nature, man against self, man against society
5a.. Name the four points of view – first person, 2nd person, third person limited, third person omniscient
6a. Name the two kinds of voice – active and passive
7a. Another word for people “speaking” is dialog.
8a. The first paragraph should set the hook
9a. Developing a character is called characterization.
10a. Making the readers see the setting in their minds is imagery.
11a. Use show, don’t tell.
12a. When you have finished writing, the next step is editing.
13a. The end of the story is called the resolution.
14a. Fantasy, horror and romance are three different genres.
15a. Don’t split an infinitive.
16a. Wordiness is called verbiage.
17a. A person who writes an article for someone else and receives no byline is called a ghost writer.
18a. A writer’s pseudonym is his pen name.
19a. A writer sends a query letter to see if the editor wants to buy his work.
20a. When a writer submits the same story to more than one place at the same time, it is called a multiple submission.

If you got all 20 questions right, yer a genius!
If you got 18-19 questions correct, yer a brainy dude!
If your score was 15-17, you dun good!
If’n you got 13-14 correct, there is hope for you!
Hmm… if you got less than 12 right, you better take the test again.

See below for more free writer’s tips!

[purchase_link id=”25524″ text=”Purchase” style=”button” color=”orange”]

Professional Writers Toe the Line of Publishing Format Standards

[purchase_link id=”25524″ text=”Purchase” style=”button” color=”orange”]

You’ve written, retooled, and revised. Now it’s time to turn your manuscript over to an editor to be refined before you submit it to the “critical eye” of a publisher. You want to ensure that your content is error free and compelling, of course. But you also want your manuscript to be formatted using generally accepted industry guidelines. Otherwise, the publisher may not even consider it.

Your editor will check both content and format. However, you’ll come across more professionally and save your editor time (and thus yourself money) if you’ve already formatted your manuscript according to industry standards. These guidelines aren’t carved in stone, but they’ve been gleaned from acquisition editors, various printed sources, and two major publishers:

• Put only one space between sentences. Two spaces is a holdover from the days when writers used typewriters. Computers use proportional spacing, eliminating the need for two spaces between sentences.

• Double-space text, and use a 12-point serif type (such as Times New Roman, which is standard).

• Leave about seven line spaces before each chapter head.

• Use a centered # or an extra line space to indicate a topic or scene break.

• Make margins a standard 1inch left, right, top, and bottom. The default for MS Word is 1.25 inches for the left and right margins, so you’d be wise to change the default to 1 inch.

• Set the alignment flush left, ragged right; never justified.

• Indent five spaces on the first line of a paragraph rather than putting a space between paragraphs.

• Don’t center titles using tabs or spaces; use the centering function.

• Use all caps sparingly; they’re hard to read.

• It’s more common to use italics than bold for emphasis. Avoid underscore-it looks amateurish and can be confused as a hyperlink.

• Learn to use the automated Table of Contents function. It’s a tremendous help as you add and update chapters. To do that, you need to embed Styles into your headings. That function is worth learning on Word. So is Insert Footnotes, View Headers/Footers, and many others. Take a Word tutorial or class, if necessary. You may discover functions you weren’t aware of that will save you time and help you to work more professionally.

• Show an ellipsis as three periods with a space both before and after and between each period. Add a fourth period when you want a thought to trail off at the end of a sentence.

• When you print out your document, use only one side of the page.

• Put your name, the working title of your book, and page number in the header at the top of each page. In the footer, include your phone number or email in a small font size in case pages get separated from the title page. Some authors add the copyright symbol and year.

These format guidelines are basic good policy if you want to submit your manuscript to a publisher as opposed to self-publish. Your editor will appreciate your professionalism, and a clean, consistent manuscript is easier to read and polish to a shine.

[purchase_link id=”25524″ text=”Purchase” style=”button” color=”orange”]

Never Waste a Good Crisis – Gulf Oil Spill + 2012 = A Raising of Human Consciousness?

[purchase_link id=”25524″ text=”Purchase” style=”button” color=”orange”]

Never Waste a Good Crisis
Gulf Oil Spill + 2012 = A Raising of Human Consciousness?

Hillary Clinton is of course famous for saying “Never waste a good crisis”. She was paraphrasing Rahm Emanuel who had earlier stated “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”. They were both referring to the economic crisis. They were both members of the Obama administration at the time of their remarks. And they both got soundly trashed for making those respective statements. People get suspicious when the government uses the excuse of an emergency to put through pent-up legislation that had zero chance of passing prior to the crisis. Post 9/11 legislation underscores the justification for such concerns. But setting aside the possible motivation behind Rahm and Hillary’s remarks, the idea of using a crisis to get something done that folks hadn’t been up for -until reality smacks them in the face- does have merit in certain circumstances. The thesis of this article is that there may be just such an opportunity looming with regard to the ongoing crisis in the Gulf of Mexico.

Wait. I’m not referring to the idea that an out of control deep sea well underscores the need to get off fossil fuels. I mean, sure, but that’s too easy a call. I actually have something else in mind to share with you. To do so, we have to start with the year 2012 and work our way backwards.

With all the gloom and doom stories in the media regarding the pending arrival of the infamous 2012 date, most people I know have starting  questioning, to one degree or another, just what 2012 may have in store. I’ve been asking myself that question for a few years now. I tripped onto 2012 while doing investment research of all things. While seeking to enrich myself financially vis-à-vis an understanding of how the future was likely to unfold, I started to realize that the next few years likely have potent ramifications not only financially, but economically, socially, environmentally, spiritually, and you-name-it-lly.

I can’t point to the year 2012 specifically, because there appears to be no conclusive evidence that 2012 itself has a punch-line whereby a confluence of events will draw a distinct before/after line in history. But I have come to believe we live in a change of ages. Can’t prove it. But I do feel it to be so. What pushed me over the top into accepting that there may actually be something to the whole “2012” brouhaha was hearing evidence that a significant number of indigenous peoples and ancient traditions have long prophesized earth changing events in this general time frame. We all know about the Mayan calendar by now, but prophesies regarding epic changes at hand are referenced everywhere from the folklore of North and South American Indigenous tribes, to Hindu texts, and other mystic texts such as the kabbalah. These prophecies range from ‘End of Days’ type predictions, to a great storm of events preceding a golden age. Who knows for certain what will happen, if anything. Yet it does seem the times they are a changin’, and we might want to be paying attention. Case in point; the ancient prophecies of the Native American Hopi contain no specific dates, yet the seventh of nine Hopi prophecies states “You will hear of the sea turning black, and many living things dying because of it“.


But the 2012 concept that most attracts me is the idea that a sea-change in human consciousness is at hand. We may be on the verge of an awakening. An awakening? Who’s going to be awakened? That would be us. People. Human Beings. The theory is we’ve been asleep. Asleep to the understanding of who-we-are. Asleep to the concept that we are creator-beings. That we are cause in our experience. That the world we live in is not something being done to us, but rather that we ourselves create our reality…both personally as our own lives manifest, as well being part of the global consciousness that collectively manifests the cosmos. So, call it waking cup, getting enlightened, raising our vibration, achieving a higher level of consciousness, or whatever other popular phrases that have earned their way in to the lexicon… all these terms point toward the concept of discovering our true nature… of realizing who-we-are.

If we are asleep though, how and why did it happen? I don’t know. And quite frankly, I’ve never seen absolute proof that the concept of self-created reality is in fact true. To a degree I’m taking it on faith that it’s not just God doing it to us. That it’s not just the devil screwing with us. Yet, I do deeplysense thatself-created reality is a core truth. And, I have had a few glimpses behind the curtain of day-to-day reality that demonstrated my existence in this 3-dimensional world is in fact me doing it to myself.

The concept of self-created reality of course throws a wrench into many (Western) religious philosophies, because, almost by definition, it means the divine force of creation resides within us, not from outside ourselves. But, religion (as opposed to god or spirituality) is mostly about control anyway, with guilt and punishment being the prime levers of control. The idea of self-created reality is in direct opposition to systems for controlling masses of people. It’s no wonder we haven’t been more exposed to the concept. However, whether or not one believes in an inner-centered reality may not matter much. It is what it is, regardless of what we perceive it to be.

And the oil eruption in the gulf is what it is. It’s just another in a series of calamities we’ve been hit with the past few years. Or is it? Is this crisis just one more in a long line of catastrophes that we somehow or another always manage to get over? Is this just a case of yes, there is death and destruction for some, but somehow the planet will shake it off and continue with business as usual?

Perhaps. Or perhaps we have just been handed a global opportunity to… wake up. Within this crisis of uncontrolled hemorrhaging of crude from deep within the planet may possibly lie a screaming opportunity that should not be wasted. You see, humankind may be so deep in its slumber that we must be shaken awake. The crisis in the gulf may be a planet wide alarm clock going off with the message: “Hello? Wake up! You have control over your destinies. This is your planet, and it’s your reality that’s brought things to where they are. You need to wake up in order to realize that you (humanity) are at the helm. You are steering the course of events unfolding, and if you don’t make a course correction pretty soon….well, there’s a really nasty shoal over there and you’re headed right for it”.

You know there are those who would suggest that the alarm has been going off for some time… but, that we keep hitting the snooze button. Result. The ringing gets louder and louder until we finally respond.

Here’s the point. It might turn out that British Petroleum cannot bring its Macondo well under control. And it might just be that the government is not going to save the day either. We as citizens of the planet may have to get involved. I’m about to cite some reasons as to why, but do you even need to hear them? Think for a moment about how truly greedy and callous it was to drill somewhere that many said up front was a place that should not be drilled. BP cares about ONE thing. And the company is only one Chapter 11 filing away from limiting its liability regarding the spill. Now think about the paralysis and dysfunction that has consumed government. The Feds were supposedly on oversight duty here. If you have any remaining faith that an oil company and/or our government are going to solve this problem, I give you this anecdote from history; When the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in 1989 (the last worst environmental disaster in U.S. history), then Secretary of Transportation Samuel Skinner stood before the American people and told them not to worry because “they (Exxon) said they would ‘take care of it’. Effects of the spill, and the lawsuits, continue to this day.

But even if government and the oil industry are cross-their-heart-hope-to-die serious this time about cleaning up the mess, here are a few reasons why a solution to the gulf oil spill may be out of their hands:

  1. There is a body of evidence suggesting that crude oil is “abiotic” in nature, meaning it’s not just created from fossilized plants and dinosaurs. Instead, oil may be created continuously from within the magma of the planet. Key word: continuously. If this is so, BP may have hit an artery. They may have tapped into a system of deep channels that route this abiotic oil throughout the planet.
  2. Abiotic or not, it’s pretty clear we have tapped in to the mother of all oil wells, and the hemorrhaging could continue for a remarkably long time. At an extreme rate. Notice how the one remaining ace up BPs sleeve – a relief well- is not being touted as a sure thing? Because it’s not. It’s a long shot. A line from Tolkien seems appropriate here: “The Dwarves dug too greedily and too deep. You know what they awoke in the darkness of Khazad-dum… shadow and flame”. An unfortunate –if not poetic- example of life imitating art, eh?
  3. In spite of the massive PR / disinformation campaign set in motion by BP, it is leaking out (excuse me) that a series of fissures have been discovered in a multi-mile circumference around the well. It appears that massive pressures are building in the area to the tune of perhaps 100,000 PSI or greater. Such pressures exceed the current technologies of mankind to contain.

We can’t afford to let this thing blow. Nor can we allow the oil to continue pouring out of the seabed. Estimates of the current leak rate have been raised to 100,000 barrels (4.2 million gallons) a day or more. Yet, it may reach a point where it will appear BP is powerless to stop the flow. There is a potential building here. A potential for a disaster of literally unprecedented proportions. I have listened to geologists and scientists describe this potential. Credible individuals who are not all being heard in mainstream media. They describe possible effects ranging from destruction of coral reefs, to massive releases of carbon dioxide, to historic extinction of ocean species, to further warming of the oceans, to the melting of the ice caps, to the release of poisonous Hydrogen Sulfide gas (H2S), to potential methane gas explosions over populated areas. And that list does not entail the eventualities of an actual eruption of the oil-gas volcano building under the sea. Scenarios are being put forth that an event of that sort could trigger a doomsday scenario.

Understand however that this essay is not a disaster or scare piece. I am not suggesting that all of these nasty things are going to occur. We know from history that worst case scenarios do not always unfold. Remember back when the other “gulf” crisis ensued -that being the Gulf War of 1991- how some were suggesting that if Saddam Hussein lit all the oil wells on fire it could ignite the atmosphere. He did. It didn’t. No, what I am simply suggesting is that credible evidence is emerging of the potential for epic disaster to occur if we don’t cap the situation. The thing is what if this time around we find ourselves fresh out of get-out-of-crisis-free cards? What the hell do we do if this emergency du jour grows beyond our technological ability to control it? What if the relief well doesn’t work? We can’t just stick our heads out the window and call for Superman. Or wait for space aliens to save the planet.

Alright. Now let’s connect the dots. What does this all add up to? We have an approaching tumultuous time frame predicted by a variety of disconnected ancient traditions portending a new age is upon us. We have a rising call around the planet for people to raise their consciousness. And we have a potentially uncontrollable crisis at hand with apocalyptic destructive potential.

Is it all a coincidence, or is it possible that this confluence of events has purpose… that out of it all we will wake up… then rise up, and give credence to the idea that humans actually do manifest reality, by sealing the crack in the bottom of the gulf. Yes, us. We the people of the world. Not BP, not the government, not alien intervention.

How would we do such a thing? With our minds, that’s how. Or perhaps more accurately, with our hearts. Or both. Sound kind of kooky? To many, yes. Yet modern Quantum Physics suggests that the world is not objective, as had long been thought by science. Rather, the world is subjective. You might say that a subjective universe does not exist (at least in material form) until it is observed. The latest science informs us that Human consciousness and the physical world can no longer be regarded as distinct, separate entities. This was demonstrated anecdotally years ago by late-night radio talk show host Art Bell, who conducted a series of mass consciousness experiments in the 1990s. Art asked his million-plus person audience to all focus at the same moment on a clock he had placed in his studio, and to imagine that the clock would slow down. Indeed, the clock lost time. At other times he had his audience focus on bringing rain to particular cities. It rained each time. He stopped the experiments after his audience steered a hurricane away from its expected path, only to have it veer into another populated area and do damage. These experiments became known as the ‘Art Bell’ Effect.

More recently, and in more controlled environments, Author Lynne McTaggart has performed hundreds of mind over matter experiments, documenting the results in her book “The Intention Experiment”. Many researchers around the world are seeing evidence that indeed, thought is the basis of reality.

Consciousness raising might just be an idea whose time has come. The notion that humans have direct control over their destiny might just be ready for mass consumption. And what better way to demonstrate it then by having millions of people work together to send focused mental (and heart) energy to stabilize the seabed around that broken well.

How might such a call go out? How would everyone be cued as to when to participate in this huge mass consciousness endeavor? I don’t know. But I do think it would be wise to tune in to the possibility that such a call may go out. Fact is, it has already has gone out in some circles. But this idea may need to really catch fire. The call may or may not surface in mainstream media. It might take the form of a request for prayers. Or perhaps words like intention, or meditation, or focus would be used. It might be a call to dream. Whatever form it takes, it will be a call to join with others to create the energetic objective of healing Mother Earth (Gaia). To send healing energy to the gulf that will seal the rupture.

So at the end of the day who knows? The government may indeed get BP to plug the well. But if not, and if things get desperate, and you happen to get that call about participating in a focused healing event, you might just want to participate. What have you got to lose?

The End. Feedback to crisis-is-as-crisis-does@hottrainingmaterials.com

reference links are with main article at:


[purchase_link id=”25524″ text=”Purchase” style=”button” color=”orange”]