Internet to the moon is slow (super lag QQ). But I am going to make it very clear that this thread will not turn into creepy pics TL Central. That's what StalkerBook is for.
On October 08 2013 06:10 MoonBear wrote: Internet to the moon is slow (super lag QQ). But I am going to make it very clear that this thread will not turn into creepy pics TL Central. That's what StalkerBook is for.
On October 08 2013 05:34 wei2coolman wrote: All these recommended high school readings being mentioned, why you guys gotta bring back the terrifying memories.
I think this is very telling of the poor state of how literature (as well as everything in general...) is taught in school ~_~
These are, overwhelmingly, colossal works of immense importance and emotional impact that should be a pleasure to read, but are instead relegated to being labeled as dreary classics that are doled out as punishment to be suffered and not enjoyed
I agree. I'm not the biggest literary scholar out there, but even as a pleb I really enjoyed a lot of the works I had to read. I really liked any Poe works, Moby Dick, Crime and Punishment, and Hamlet. I wish I read more Shakespeare and there are a lot of famous works that I want to tap into but CSheep says I'm not ready yet.
I also need to read more Russian lit than reading all this sci-fi that CSheep has made me read for the last few months.
Oh, but the guy who liked the Canterbury Tales...omg Hyperion is so goooodddd maybe you should check it out.
On October 08 2013 06:09 Requizen wrote: I'm generally open minded about book-movies, but WWZ offended me so much that I don't even know if I will be able to stomach going to Ender's Game.
On October 08 2013 06:09 Requizen wrote: I'm generally open minded about book-movies, but WWZ offended me so much that I don't even know if I will be able to stomach going to Ender's Game.
I'm terrified.
On October 08 2013 06:10 MoonBear wrote: Internet to the moon is slow (super lag QQ). But I am going to make it very clear that this thread will not turn into creepy pics TL Central. That's what StalkerBook is for.
On October 08 2013 06:11 Slusher wrote: well I don't know what you expected, Day Z the book makes 0 sense as a script.
I expected them to keep the general idea of social commentary of how different cultures handled a zombie outbreak, the breakdown of moral codes and ideologies, scenes of militaries around the world adapting to fighting the undead, the plight of the everyman attempting to survive. Hell, I expected the same types of zombies - slow, dumb, headshots only. Or fuck, even the same setting, post-post-apocalypse where the main character was interviewing a series of flashbacks.
Instead we got a generic action flick where zombies destroy the entire world in 2 days. Not to mention fast, group thinking, rage-virus zombies that screeched like birds (lol that last scene) and could outrun living people like packs of Velociraptors. And Brad Pitt as secret agent reporter badass with plot armor saves the world singlehandedly.
The movie was literally the opposite of everything the book is about. There was no Battle of Yonkers, there was no Redeker, no cocky mercenary, no ghettos of survivors who learn that class doesn't matter in the light of the end of the world, no North Korea disappearing, no cool old blind Japanese man or otaku kid with a sword.
I'm legitimately pissed about everything that movie stands for. And I really hate Brad Pitt for, from what I hear, changing the script from something similar to the books into this monstrosity.
On October 08 2013 06:11 Slusher wrote: well I don't know what you expected, Day Z the book makes 0 sense as a script.
I expected them to keep the general idea of social commentary of how different cultures handled a zombie outbreak, the breakdown of moral codes and ideologies, scenes of militaries around the world adapting to fighting the undead, the plight of the everyman attempting to survive. Hell, I expected the same types of zombies - slow, dumb, headshots only. Or fuck, even the same setting, post-post-apocalypse where the main character was interviewing a series of flashbacks.
Instead we got a generic action flick where zombies destroy the entire world in 2 days. Not to mention fast, group thinking, rage-virus zombies that screeched like birds (lol that last scene) and could outrun living people like packs of Velociraptors. And Brad Pitt as secret agent reporter badass with plot armor saves the world singlehandedly.
The movie was literally the opposite of everything the book is about. There was no Battle of Yonkers, there was no Redeker, no cocky mercenary, no ghettos of survivors who learn that class doesn't matter in the light of the end of the world, no North Korea disappearing, no cool old blind Japanese man or otaku kid with a sword.
I'm legitimately pissed about everything that movie stands for. And I really hate Brad Pitt for, from what I hear, changing the script from something similar to the books into this monstrosity.
I have neither read nor seen WWZ. I'm assuming I should read it?
On October 08 2013 05:34 wei2coolman wrote: All these recommended high school readings being mentioned, why you guys gotta bring back the terrifying memories.
I think this is very telling of the poor state of how literature (as well as everything in general...) is taught in school ~_~
These are, overwhelmingly, colossal works of immense importance and emotional impact that should be a pleasure to read, but are instead relegated to being labeled as dreary classics that are doled out as punishment to be suffered and not enjoyed
I agree. I'm not the biggest literary scholar out there, but even as a pleb I really enjoyed a lot of the works I had to read. I really liked any Poe works, Moby Dick, Crime and Punishment, and Hamlet. I wish I read more Shakespeare and there are a lot of famous works that I want to tap into but CSheep says I'm not ready yet.
I also need to read more Russian lit than reading all this sci-fi that CSheep has made me read for the last few months.
Oh, but the guy who liked the Canterbury Tales...omg Hyperion is so goooodddd maybe you should check it out.
On October 08 2013 06:09 Requizen wrote: I'm generally open minded about book-movies, but WWZ offended me so much that I don't even know if I will be able to stomach going to Ender's Game.
OMG I'm going to be so sad if it sucks (it will).
Bro I literally told you to read ONE book.
Ender's Game is gonna suck and we're gonna cry about it together ZNF
On October 08 2013 05:34 wei2coolman wrote: All these recommended high school readings being mentioned, why you guys gotta bring back the terrifying memories.
I think this is very telling of the poor state of how literature (as well as everything in general...) is taught in school ~_~
These are, overwhelmingly, colossal works of immense importance and emotional impact that should be a pleasure to read, but are instead relegated to being labeled as dreary classics that are doled out as punishment to be suffered and not enjoyed
Honestly, that is because they are really not that good. Shakespeare in particular is the #1 offender. They are PLAYS not books, so reading them makes no sense. If you want to teach Shakespeare before college you get the faculty to put on a play, or else its idiotic.
Secondly about him, it contains a lot of outdated social commentary that middle school/high school English teachers are unable to convey. Its like reading Dante's Inferno without being able to explain why a 15th century Pope is in Hell.
Finally, most of his works contain thematic elements that have been redone in much better ways. Star Wars IV-VI is a much more interesting and better done amalgamation of Hamlet + a love story. Disney has basically a movie for every one of his famous plays, and they are all better done with tighter, more relevant, writing, and even then who would want to have a class READ Beauty and the Beast? Just because something is first, doesn't make it the best. Most of those books should only be taught in upper level "History of Literature" courses. The problem is English is taught by the 5% of weirdos who actually liked that stuff in high school so they perpetuate the nonsense.
"If I don't like it it must be bad."
Nah man. Its more like, "Just because it came first, doesn't mean its the best." There were a bunch of "complex Anti-Hero" shows before the Sopranos and Breaking Bad, and there were a bunch of cop shows before The Wire. You aren't forced to watch and study NYPD Blue though.
I like a few of the works: The Odyssey/Iliad, History of the Peloponnesian War, The Bible, Quran, Don Quixote, Tale of Two Cities, To Kill a Mockingbird, Crime and Punishment, The Gulag Archipelago, etc. The overwhelming importance of all those, however is irrelevant to their usefulness as teaching tools. Most of them published before Mockingbird are more frustrating, than useful.
On October 08 2013 05:34 wei2coolman wrote: All these recommended high school readings being mentioned, why you guys gotta bring back the terrifying memories.
I think this is very telling of the poor state of how literature (as well as everything in general...) is taught in school ~_~
These are, overwhelmingly, colossal works of immense importance and emotional impact that should be a pleasure to read, but are instead relegated to being labeled as dreary classics that are doled out as punishment to be suffered and not enjoyed
I agree. I'm not the biggest literary scholar out there, but even as a pleb I really enjoyed a lot of the works I had to read. I really liked any Poe works, Moby Dick, Crime and Punishment, and Hamlet. I wish I read more Shakespeare and there are a lot of famous works that I want to tap into but CSheep says I'm not ready yet.
I also need to read more Russian lit than reading all this sci-fi that CSheep has made me read for the last few months.
Oh, but the guy who liked the Canterbury Tales...omg Hyperion is so goooodddd maybe you should check it out.
On October 08 2013 06:09 Requizen wrote: I'm generally open minded about book-movies, but WWZ offended me so much that I don't even know if I will be able to stomach going to Ender's Game.
OMG I'm going to be so sad if it sucks (it will).
Bro I literally told you to read ONE book.
Ender's Game is gonna suck and we're gonna cry about it together ZNF
Hyperion. Fall of Hyperion......two....learn to count.
Oh and Dune.
Yeah let's cry while buying another copy of Ender's Game and using it as a napkin for our tears. ;_____;
On October 08 2013 06:11 Slusher wrote: well I don't know what you expected, Day Z the book makes 0 sense as a script.
I expected them to keep the general idea of social commentary of how different cultures handled a zombie outbreak, the breakdown of moral codes and ideologies, scenes of militaries around the world adapting to fighting the undead, the plight of the everyman attempting to survive. Hell, I expected the same types of zombies - slow, dumb, headshots only. Or fuck, even the same setting, post-post-apocalypse where the main character was interviewing a series of flashbacks.
Instead we got a generic action flick where zombies destroy the entire world in 2 days. Not to mention fast, group thinking, rage-virus zombies that screeched like birds (lol that last scene) and could outrun living people like packs of Velociraptors. And Brad Pitt as secret agent reporter badass with plot armor saves the world singlehandedly.
The movie was literally the opposite of everything the book is about. There was no Battle of Yonkers, there was no Redeker, no cocky mercenary, no ghettos of survivors who learn that class doesn't matter in the light of the end of the world, no North Korea disappearing, no cool old blind Japanese man or otaku kid with a sword.
I'm legitimately pissed about everything that movie stands for. And I really hate Brad Pitt for, from what I hear, changing the script from something similar to the books into this monstrosity.
I have neither read nor seen WWZ. I'm assuming I should read it?
Read. Read read read reeeead. It's honesty one of my favorite books.
On October 08 2013 05:34 wei2coolman wrote: All these recommended high school readings being mentioned, why you guys gotta bring back the terrifying memories.
I think this is very telling of the poor state of how literature (as well as everything in general...) is taught in school ~_~
These are, overwhelmingly, colossal works of immense importance and emotional impact that should be a pleasure to read, but are instead relegated to being labeled as dreary classics that are doled out as punishment to be suffered and not enjoyed
Honestly, that is because they are really not that good. Shakespeare in particular is the #1 offender. They are PLAYS not books, so reading them makes no sense. If you want to teach Shakespeare before college you get the faculty to put on a play, or else its idiotic.
Secondly about him, it contains a lot of outdated social commentary that middle school/high school English teachers are unable to convey. Its like reading Dante's Inferno without being able to explain why a 15th century Pope is in Hell.
Finally, most of his works contain thematic elements that have been redone in much better ways. Star Wars IV-VI is a much more interesting and better done amalgamation of Hamlet + a love story. Disney has basically a movie for every one of his famous plays, and they are all better done with tighter, more relevant, writing, and even then who would want to have a class READ Beauty and the Beast? Just because something is first, doesn't make it the best. Most of those books should only be taught in upper level "History of Literature" courses. The problem is English is taught by the 5% of weirdos who actually liked that stuff in high school so they perpetuate the nonsense.
"If I don't like it it must be bad."
Nah man. Its more like, "Just because it came first, doesn't mean its the best." There were a bunch of "complex Anti-Hero" shows before the Sopranos and Breaking Bad, and there were a bunch of cop shows before The Wire. You aren't forced to watch and study NYPD Blue though.
I like a few of the works: The Odyssey/Iliad, History of the Peloponnesian War, The Bible, Quran, Don Quixote, Tale of Two Cities, To Kill a Mockingbird, Crime and Punishment, The Gulag Archipelago, etc. The overwhelming importance of all those, however is irrelevant to their usefulness as teaching tools. Most of them published before Mockingbird are more frustrating, than useful.
What do you mean by these books and their "usefulness as teaching tools?"
Ok, finally cleared through the posts in this thread.
Re: MTG I primarily follow Eternal formats (Modern/Legacy) so I guess I can answer questions about them. I lurk in the MtG Thread too but I generally only post about Eternal or Rules Questions.
@Caelym: I playtested that deck a bit. It seemed... slow? Your have a rather low threat density. Outside of your lands, Bob and DRS (which I don't count as proper threats) you have three creatures that actually beat face. That's pretty low and you can't really pressure or start a clock. It feels like you're more about landing Planeswalkers and protecting them or something but they don't feel like they go over the top and just win right then and there. Like, let's say you play Scapeshift. You strip their hand of cards, and then they have 10 turns to find their win condition while you beat them down with a Bob. Yeah.
Cut a Chandra because 3x seems overkill and this isn't a card you want to see every game. Abrupt Decay and Terminate seem to overlap too much unless there's something on your meta you really want to kill. And even then taking one of them out for a miser Pillar of Flame is probably better. Xenagos also seems really questionable when you have such a lot creature count to begin with (what are you even going to play with that mana anyway when nothing costs more than 4?). Put in some big threats like Thrun, Olivia Voldaren, or even simple Kitchen Finks because you need some kind of board presence.
On October 08 2013 06:11 Vegetarian Wolf wrote: Can I have a creepy pic of you MoonBear :3
On October 08 2013 06:10 MoonBear wrote: Internet to the moon is slow (super lag QQ). But I am going to make it very clear that this thread will not turn into creepy pics TL Central. That's what StalkerBook is for.
On October 08 2013 05:34 wei2coolman wrote: All these recommended high school readings being mentioned, why you guys gotta bring back the terrifying memories.
I think this is very telling of the poor state of how literature (as well as everything in general...) is taught in school ~_~
These are, overwhelmingly, colossal works of immense importance and emotional impact that should be a pleasure to read, but are instead relegated to being labeled as dreary classics that are doled out as punishment to be suffered and not enjoyed
Honestly, that is because they are really not that good. Shakespeare in particular is the #1 offender. They are PLAYS not books, so reading them makes no sense. If you want to teach Shakespeare before college you get the faculty to put on a play, or else its idiotic.
Secondly about him, it contains a lot of outdated social commentary that middle school/high school English teachers are unable to convey. Its like reading Dante's Inferno without being able to explain why a 15th century Pope is in Hell.
Finally, most of his works contain thematic elements that have been redone in much better ways. Star Wars IV-VI is a much more interesting and better done amalgamation of Hamlet + a love story. Disney has basically a movie for every one of his famous plays, and they are all better done with tighter, more relevant, writing, and even then who would want to have a class READ Beauty and the Beast? Just because something is first, doesn't make it the best. Most of those books should only be taught in upper level "History of Literature" courses. The problem is English is taught by the 5% of weirdos who actually liked that stuff in high school so they perpetuate the nonsense.
"If I don't like it it must be bad."
Nah man. Its more like, "Just because it came first, doesn't mean its the best." There were a bunch of "complex Anti-Hero" shows before the Sopranos and Breaking Bad, and there were a bunch of cop shows before The Wire. You aren't forced to watch and study NYPD Blue though.
I like a few of the works: The Odyssey/Iliad, History of the Peloponnesian War, The Bible, Quran, Don Quixote, Tale of Two Cities, To Kill a Mockingbird, Crime and Punishment, The Gulag Archipelago, etc. The overwhelming importance of all those, however is irrelevant to their usefulness as teaching tools. Most of them published before Mockingbird are more frustrating, than useful.
What do you mean by these books and their "usefulness as teaching tools?"
Teaching your students how to read, extract information from that reading, getting meanings out of that information, and then applying them to similar situations in the future. Basically, Critical reading skills.
On October 08 2013 05:34 wei2coolman wrote: All these recommended high school readings being mentioned, why you guys gotta bring back the terrifying memories.
I think this is very telling of the poor state of how literature (as well as everything in general...) is taught in school ~_~
These are, overwhelmingly, colossal works of immense importance and emotional impact that should be a pleasure to read, but are instead relegated to being labeled as dreary classics that are doled out as punishment to be suffered and not enjoyed
Honestly, that is because they are really not that good. Shakespeare in particular is the #1 offender. They are PLAYS not books, so reading them makes no sense. If you want to teach Shakespeare before college you get the faculty to put on a play, or else its idiotic.
Secondly about him, it contains a lot of outdated social commentary that middle school/high school English teachers are unable to convey. Its like reading Dante's Inferno without being able to explain why a 15th century Pope is in Hell.
Finally, most of his works contain thematic elements that have been redone in much better ways. Star Wars IV-VI is a much more interesting and better done amalgamation of Hamlet + a love story. Disney has basically a movie for every one of his famous plays, and they are all better done with tighter, more relevant, writing, and even then who would want to have a class READ Beauty and the Beast? Just because something is first, doesn't make it the best. Most of those books should only be taught in upper level "History of Literature" courses. The problem is English is taught by the 5% of weirdos who actually liked that stuff in high school so they perpetuate the nonsense.
"If I don't like it it must be bad."
Nah man. Its more like, "Just because it came first, doesn't mean its the best." There were a bunch of "complex Anti-Hero" shows before the Sopranos and Breaking Bad, and there were a bunch of cop shows before The Wire. You aren't forced to watch and study NYPD Blue though.
I like a few of the works: The Odyssey/Iliad, History of the Peloponnesian War, The Bible, Quran, Don Quixote, Tale of Two Cities, To Kill a Mockingbird, Crime and Punishment, The Gulag Archipelago, etc. The overwhelming importance of all those, however is irrelevant to their usefulness as teaching tools. Most of them published before Mockingbird are more frustrating, than useful.
You're setting up a strawman then, because no one ever claimed that these books are good on merit of being first/old/whatever.
On October 08 2013 05:34 wei2coolman wrote: All these recommended high school readings being mentioned, why you guys gotta bring back the terrifying memories.
I think this is very telling of the poor state of how literature (as well as everything in general...) is taught in school ~_~
These are, overwhelmingly, colossal works of immense importance and emotional impact that should be a pleasure to read, but are instead relegated to being labeled as dreary classics that are doled out as punishment to be suffered and not enjoyed
Honestly, that is because they are really not that good. Shakespeare in particular is the #1 offender. They are PLAYS not books, so reading them makes no sense. If you want to teach Shakespeare before college you get the faculty to put on a play, or else its idiotic.
Secondly about him, it contains a lot of outdated social commentary that middle school/high school English teachers are unable to convey. Its like reading Dante's Inferno without being able to explain why a 15th century Pope is in Hell.
Finally, most of his works contain thematic elements that have been redone in much better ways. Star Wars IV-VI is a much more interesting and better done amalgamation of Hamlet + a love story. Disney has basically a movie for every one of his famous plays, and they are all better done with tighter, more relevant, writing, and even then who would want to have a class READ Beauty and the Beast? Just because something is first, doesn't make it the best. Most of those books should only be taught in upper level "History of Literature" courses. The problem is English is taught by the 5% of weirdos who actually liked that stuff in high school so they perpetuate the nonsense.
"If I don't like it it must be bad."
Nah man. Its more like, "Just because it came first, doesn't mean its the best." There were a bunch of "complex Anti-Hero" shows before the Sopranos and Breaking Bad, and there were a bunch of cop shows before The Wire. You aren't forced to watch and study NYPD Blue though.
I like a few of the works: The Odyssey/Iliad, History of the Peloponnesian War, The Bible, Quran, Don Quixote, Tale of Two Cities, To Kill a Mockingbird, Crime and Punishment, The Gulag Archipelago, etc. The overwhelming importance of all those, however is irrelevant to their usefulness as teaching tools. Most of them published before Mockingbird are more frustrating, than useful.
What do you mean by these books and their "usefulness as teaching tools?"
Teaching your students how to read, extract information from that reading, getting meanings out of that information, and then applying them to similar situations in the future. Basically, Critical reading skills.
Good literature also performs the role of a social critique of the times they were written in and gives us an insight into the views of the times. They also provide a platform for which the author can deliver a message about values or take us on a journey and experience something new and exciting. A well written book makes you think, and you feel like you see something new when you think about it through different lens.
Also, if you guys have not seen ThugNotes on YouTube you are missing out yo.
On October 08 2013 05:34 wei2coolman wrote: All these recommended high school readings being mentioned, why you guys gotta bring back the terrifying memories.
I think this is very telling of the poor state of how literature (as well as everything in general...) is taught in school ~_~
These are, overwhelmingly, colossal works of immense importance and emotional impact that should be a pleasure to read, but are instead relegated to being labeled as dreary classics that are doled out as punishment to be suffered and not enjoyed
Honestly, that is because they are really not that good. Shakespeare in particular is the #1 offender. They are PLAYS not books, so reading them makes no sense. If you want to teach Shakespeare before college you get the faculty to put on a play, or else its idiotic.
Secondly about him, it contains a lot of outdated social commentary that middle school/high school English teachers are unable to convey. Its like reading Dante's Inferno without being able to explain why a 15th century Pope is in Hell.
Finally, most of his works contain thematic elements that have been redone in much better ways. Star Wars IV-VI is a much more interesting and better done amalgamation of Hamlet + a love story. Disney has basically a movie for every one of his famous plays, and they are all better done with tighter, more relevant, writing, and even then who would want to have a class READ Beauty and the Beast? Just because something is first, doesn't make it the best. Most of those books should only be taught in upper level "History of Literature" courses. The problem is English is taught by the 5% of weirdos who actually liked that stuff in high school so they perpetuate the nonsense.
"If I don't like it it must be bad."
Nah man. Its more like, "Just because it came first, doesn't mean its the best." There were a bunch of "complex Anti-Hero" shows before the Sopranos and Breaking Bad, and there were a bunch of cop shows before The Wire. You aren't forced to watch and study NYPD Blue though.
I like a few of the works: The Odyssey/Iliad, History of the Peloponnesian War, The Bible, Quran, Don Quixote, Tale of Two Cities, To Kill a Mockingbird, Crime and Punishment, The Gulag Archipelago, etc. The overwhelming importance of all those, however is irrelevant to their usefulness as teaching tools. Most of them published before Mockingbird are more frustrating, than useful.
What do you mean by these books and their "usefulness as teaching tools?"
Teaching your students how to read, extract information from that reading, getting meanings out of that information, and then applying them to similar situations in the future. Basically, Critical reading skills.
Hmmm.......not sure what I feel about this. Pretty sure I'm with CSheep here in that I don't think the books I read in English class had the intention of "extracting information from that reading" as opposed to just immerse myself in really well written literature.
Half the time when I don't like something, a good reason why is because I simply don't get it and therefore can't appreciate. It sounds to me like the reason you dislike some of these books is because you find them "frustrating." Why is that? Because their language is outdated? Because you hate their stories? Because to say that Star Wars is a better version of Hamlet......iono mang
Also, no one said that older things are better than newer things.
EPT
