On October 08 2013 05:12 Requizen wrote: I liked Poe. Dunno, something about his imagery of despair and horror really clicked with me.
I love Poe. The Raven is one of my favorite poems.
Also, the Tell-Tale Heart. When my 6th grade teacher was reading it to us, it was a really stormy day out. As things were getting really tense, the classroom clock starting going insane and the hands were spinning wildly around it.
Was AWESOME
The Imp of the Perverse. That one and the Tell-Tale Heart are actually two stories I often reference to people when trying to explain the draw that people have toward harmful stuff.
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Secondly about him, it contains a lot of outdated social commentary that middle school/high school English teachers are unable to convey.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.
No, no, you are, because they are objectively worse than the newer literature which have similar basic plots with deeper character development. Plays, in particular, are terrible as reading materials. Plays with outdated English are beyond terrible to teach with. Its like trying to teach LOTR, except JRR Tolkien only wrote his weird songs in the 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?"
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.
There are probably 100 English teachers in America capable of conveying those things to the average High School Student. I was in exclusively "Advanced" or "Honors" classes throughout high school and had 0 such teachers + even in those classes over 50% of the students wouldn't understand what you are talking about if you taught it properly.
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 06:53 Vegetarian Wolf wrote: moonbear pls why are you so heartless
On October 08 2013 06:30 cLutZ wrote:
On October 08 2013 06:08 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:
On October 08 2013 06:05 cLutZ wrote:
On October 08 2013 05:36 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:
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.
No, no, you are, because they are objectively worse than the newer literature which have similar basic plots with deeper character development. Plays, in particular, are terrible as reading materials. Plays with outdated English are beyond terrible to teach with. Its like trying to teach LOTR, except JRR Tolkien only wrote his weird songs in the books.
I really don't know what you are talking about when you say that old books are...objectively worse...than newer literature...when the only thing you've referenced that was better than Hamlet was Star Wars. Like....what am I reading (pun intended).
You keep talking about teaching as if what teachers do when they have you read plays is talk about "Hey guys, what kind of information can we extract" as opposed to just reading and appreciating good use of language...at least that's what my teachers always had us do. And we read plays out loud and partially performed them. That was fun.
And I don't know where you're trying to say that CSheep was strawmanning you when you were specifically saying "It's more like 'Just because it came first, doesn't mean its the best'", which sounds exactly like a strawman since no one said it until now.
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
The only books that I liked that were required readings were Grapes of Wrath and Heart of Darkness. Everything else I read was very 'meh' for me. I'll admit I'm a much bigger fan of short stories and children's literature. They're far more telling than classic literature imo.
@moonbear I agree threat density is low. The original idea is to grind out the game and accumulate CA. Maybe this is too simple and slow for modern. I was thinking of cutting 2 walkers for huntmaster. I put in xenagos because I had a spare one lying around and the hasty 2/2s is a 3/4 turn clock (then again so is thundermaw).
Re: Hyperion I think it's a good book and really interesting but the slow pacing, slow plot development (if one even exists...) and dense writing makes it an unpleasant read for me.
wtf Grapes of Wrath is an incredibly sad book, like it's good but I'd never reccomend it to anyone. The ending is just, man, I get that it's a portrait of the times but it's a tough read.
1984 on the other hand, one of the best, and a quick read.
I think those Thug Notes videos are probably better than every Egnlish/Literature class I've ever had/witness except maybe one. That's just an exceptional way of conveying a story ideas & themes. TY TY for the link MoonBear.
Re clutZ's Anti-literature argument: The justification within schools and teaching departments and conveyed to most parents (and students when anyone cares enough what they think to bother) for teaching most literature is exactly that "came first must be great." Which unfortunately has a lot to do with traditional teaching structures and western society's love of dead white dudes. The very concept of great authors is garbage, but more pressing is that by reaching back to older-storytelling techniques (Capital L) Literature often places an additional barrier between students and the story. It makes it harder to relate to Odysseus when you have to read his adventures as an epic poem about strange ancient people who are fascinated by genealogies.
The most obvious example of the problem this creates is with Romeo & Juliet. For most students it's just an awful chore to read because 1) even if they do read it the language means something else entirely so there's almost no meaning to it, and 2) because it's a play and all dialogue it doesn't have critical storytelling signposts for readers. At the same time, students LOVE the modernized movie version from '90something, because it tells them a story in a way they can relate to.
Far too many children (low SES/inner cities even more so) struggle at some point learning to read and come to regard reading as unpleasant & hard. Instead of creating curriculums that persuade students that reading can be fucking awesome with engaging/relatable stories and worth the difficulty, they get to slog through ancient/dated works whose greatest power is frequently as a social commentary that the students are never clued in upon. In Philly most English curriculums will include one, maybe two, books published after 1970, and students latch on to those much more readily because less of the story is lost in linguistic or temporal translation.
E:sorry, I got kinda wound up. Gonna go watch Thug Notes and feel better.
On October 08 2013 09:49 Zergneedsfood wrote: I don't think the mentality is ever "came first must be better." zzzzz
I had great English teachers, so maybe it's just me.
Teachers make a huge difference. However, Beowulf, Canterbury Tales, and really Dickens waddle into "Literature" status largely on the basis of time. Beowulf is a known item almost exclusively because it's considered something close to the first written English work. Chauster's is largely a book of sex-jokes, but wrapped in the 1400's students need a translator to get them which is generally the fastest way to render something unfunny. Dickens is more approachable, and often (not always) has an interesting story and historically important social critique at the heart of his works that can usually be conveyed to students. Unfortunately he was paid to pad his writing and draw his stories out to unbearable lengths to draw in readers every month, resulting in painfully bloated narratives. But because Dickens wrote it, and he was kind of a big deal in his day, it's Literature despite much of his work being Victorian Dan Brown.
EPT
