|
On October 08 2013 10:10 Haiq343 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I mean we can debate the merits of certain works in the canon or not, but I'm sure everyone here knows that what many literary circles consider "canon" is a vast category that goes beyond the category of dead white Europeans (and even that category is obviously near limitless in how much you can read in a lifetime), with different political/social/economic motivations and influences in numerous time periods. To just wave away "Literature" just based on one's high school experience is a pretty narrowminded approach imho
|
United States23745 Posts
I just started reading Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, pretty funny so far lol.
|
On October 08 2013 10:22 onlywonderboy wrote:
I just started reading Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, pretty funny so far lol.
Favorite series of all time. God I love Douglas Adams.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams
|
On October 08 2013 10:17 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 10:10 Haiq343 wrote: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. I mean we can debate the merits of certain works in the canon or not, but I'm sure everyone here knows that what many literary circles consider "canon" is a vast category that goes beyond the category of dead white Europeans (and even that category is obviously near limitless in how much you can read in a lifetime), with different political/social/economic motivations and influences in numerous time periods. To just wave away "Literature" just based on one's high school experience is a pretty narrowminded approach imho
Agreed, and I guess I wasn't clear. I'm arguing about it primarily from the perspective of changing how it's taught to shift to more relatable (usually modern) works with the aim of getting students to enjoy/love reading and notice/appreciate all the depth that can exist in writing. Too often the discussion runs into some Literature v mere fiction with educators who want to share their love of Dickens and other classics without realizing how far away most of their students are from appreciating those works.
I think I was mostly soapboxing, it's not like the shadow-english curriculum setters are going to read TLoL and swoon before the might of my rhetoric. I also detest Great Expectations and needed to shake my pitchforks and torches at it's pedestal.
Productively A Savage War of Peace (history of Algeria's independence) is excellent, and since my brain is here The Battle of Algiers is also an stupendous film.
|
On October 08 2013 10:10 Haiq343 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Chauster left CLG to be a writer? 
I haven't been following this discussion too closely but aren't you guys ignoring the fact that literature is also entertainment? Entertaining literature can also be good literature. Isn't that why Shakespeare has been so prevalent for so long? Good literature shouldn't be just reserved for the purely intellectual and artistic endeavors.
|
I really wish DOTA Tournament Organizers were more strict about names, it actually really annoys me how ~half the players in any given game have some joke name instead.
|
On October 03 2013 05:44 ComaDose wrote:thanks knowing this term led to so many better resources than yahoo answers EDIT: + Show Spoiler +On October 03 2013 05:40 Nos- wrote:
I still don't get the vegetarian wolf thing herbivore shepherd?
Any improvement with the gliding?
|
You ever have one of those feelings that your life is going way too well and that someone's going to come up and stab you in the face as karma?
Playing Hearthstone until then.
|
On October 08 2013 08:35 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 07:54 cLutZ wrote: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.
The fact is you love to read, and you love to read literature. That means that your opinion on the usefulness of texts for teaching purposes is nearly (not I said nearly, not completely) irrelevant. High School is about engaging students who HATE what they are being told to do, HATE waking up at 7 AM, and HATE you for being an authority figure (because 9/10 teachers, and that is a favorable number from my experience, are terrible).
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.
I don't think you can explain a lot of what is taught without that explanation.
Common Core 9-10 reccomended readings + Show Spoiler +
Homer. The Odyssey ..........................................................................................................101
Ovid. Metamorphoses .......................................................................................................101
Gogol, Nikolai. “The Nose.” .............................................................................................102
De Voltaire, F. A. M. Candide, Or The Optimist ......................................................103
Turgenev, Ivan. Fathers and Sons ................................................................................104
Henry, O. “The Gift of the Magi.” ..................................................................................104
Kafka, Franz. The Metamorphosis ...............................................................................105
Steinbeck, John. The Grapes of Wrath ......................................................................105
Bradbury, Ray. Fahrenheit 451 ......................................................................................106
Olsen, Tillie. “I Stand Here Ironing.” ............................................................................106
Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart ...............................................................................107
Lee, Harper. To Kill A Mockingbird ...............................................................................107
Shaara, Michael. The Killer Angels...............................................................................108
Tan, Amy. The Joy Luck Club ........................................................................................108
Álvarez, Julia. In the Time of the Butterflies ...........................................................108
Zusak, Marcus. The Book Thief .....................................................................................109
11+
+ Show Spoiler +
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales ................................................................140
de Cervantes, Miguel. Don Quixote ............................................................................140
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice ...............................................................................142
Poe, Edgar Allan. “The Cask of Amontillado.” .........................................................143
Brontë, Charlotte. Jane Eyre .........................................................................................144
Hawthorne, Nathaniel. The Scarlet Letter .................................................................145
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment ..........................................................146
Jewett, Sarah Orne. “A White Heron.” .......................................................................146
Melville, Herman. Billy Budd, Sailor .............................................................................147
Chekhov, Anton. “Home.” ................................................................................................148
Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Great Gatsby .......................................................................149
Faulkner, William. As I Lay Dying .................................................................................149
Hemingway, Ernest. A Farewell to .............................................................................150
Hurston, Zora Neale. Their Eyes Were Watching God .........................................150
Borges, Jorge Luis. “The Garden of Forking Paths.” ............................................150
Bellow, Saul. The Adventures of Augie March ..........................................................151
Morrison, Toni. The Bluest Eye .......................................................................................152
Garcia, Cristina. Dreaming in Cuban ...........................................................................152
Lahiri, Jhumpa. The Namesake ......................................................................................152
And honestly, those books are weighted far more modern than the suggested reading under Drama, and Poetry.
|
On October 08 2013 11:25 Requizen wrote:You ever have one of those feelings that your life is going way too well and that someone's going to come up and stab you in the face as karma? Playing Hearthstone until then.
You ever have that feeling when you put your trust in Req and he stabs you in the face by going jungle Karma?
I've had that.
|
Clutz I think your suggestion of getting rid of classic literature because kids don't want to read it is dumb.
Kids don't know what's best for them and I sure as hell look back on my childhood and high school years and think to myself "THANK GOD MY TEACHERS FORCED ME TO READ SHAKESPEARE AND EXPLAINED IT WELL TO ME AFTERWARDS" because if not I'd be a hell of a lot stupider.
In much the same way I wish I had followed through on piano lessons as a child, I think it is important to teach children with good literature, not just whatever shit you can get them to read because it's easy.
|
The fact is you love to read, and you love to read literature. That means that your opinion on the usefulness of texts for teaching purposes is nearly (not I said nearly, not completely) irrelevant. High School is about engaging students who HATE what they are being told to do, HATE waking up at 7 AM, and HATE you for being an authority figure (because 9/10 teachers, and that is a favorable number from my experience, are terrible).
No....that's not what high school is about, but w/e. I still don't understand wtf you are talking about when you say the "usefulness" of texts. Based on your evaluation, it seems to me that to you, all we should do is not read anything old, only read new books that immerse one in modern culture and linguistics that are easy to read and understand rather than archaic texts that use outdated and esoteric terminology, study grammar 24/7 and just read things that have some kind of purpose....maybe learn how to read textbooks well?
Like I really don't understand why you keep trying to bring this "usefulness of texts" business into a class that is less about being "useful" and more about learning about the beauty of language. The more you talk about whether or not a book is useful, the more I doubt your evaluation of which books should be included in an English curriculum.
|
I don't get how reading shakespeare makes you smart
|
On October 08 2013 11:49 GhandiEAGLE wrote:You ever have that feeling when you put your trust in Req and he stabs you in the face by going jungle Karma? I've had that.
I was like 4-0-1 you just bad
|
On October 08 2013 11:52 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Clutz I think your suggestion of getting rid of classic literature because kids don't want to read it is dumb.
Kids don't know what's best for them and I sure as hell look back on my childhood and high school years and think to myself "THANK GOD MY TEACHERS FORCED ME TO READ SHAKESPEARE AND EXPLAINED IT WELL TO ME AFTERWARDS" because if not I'd be a hell of a lot stupider.
In much the same way I wish I had followed through on piano lessons as a child, I think it is important to teach children with good literature, not just whatever shit you can get them to read because it's easy.
I sorta agree with clutz. Classic literature is boring, especially to majority of kids who don't like reading. Well written short stories are a lot more palatable to most kids, and they can extract the same amount of knowledge. But teachers are pretty much obligated to teach classic literature, cuz it's "classic".
|
Fuck I wish the Book Theif was standard literature when I was in high school, alas, it had not been written yet.
at least 5 of the books (I don't know all of them) on Clutz's list aren't even old.
|
When you have kids who are being given Shakespeare to read when they can't even get a 30 on the ACT Reading section, its a problem. I understand that you want kids to be immersed in literature. That is fine. Once they can read an AP report and Harry Potter and give me a synopsis without watching the movie/cliffnotes we can progress to that.
Wtf is the "beauty of language"? I can honestly say its phrases like that that always made me pissed off at English teachers, or later on in College, English Majors.
|
On October 08 2013 12:00 Nos- wrote:
I don't get how reading shakespeare makes you smart
Literature doesn't have to make you smart, but it does allow you to appreciate the world in different ways, through different perspectives, and have litgasms when you read a good line of prose or verse.
Someone said it earlier - in the end, literature is entertainment. Everyone can find something that can be entertaining and individually fulfilling and meaningful, and that's enough. The problem is that the way the current system is set up isn't conducive to helping people find something that they can connect with.
This conversation has strayed to include the concepts of a canon, of genre fiction, of modern culture, of linguistics, etc. etc., which is hardly productive. These topics are each complex in their own right and don't deserve to be machine gunned off in some misguided attempt to defend some quixotic quest to eradicate capital-L-"Literature."
Also I just woke up from a nap and missed like 2 pages. On the topic of Douglas Adams and the film adaptation of the HG2G: When my friend (who is also a huge fan of the series) and I saw the movie we both hated it. we were actually very surprised that a lot of big fans of the series professed their love for the movie. I still don't really see it personally, but to each his own I guess.
On October 08 2013 12:12 cLutZ wrote:
When you have kids who are being given Shakespeare to read when they can't even get a 30 on the ACT Reading section, its a problem. I understand that you want kids to be immersed in literature. That is fine. Once they can read an AP report and Harry Potter and give me a synopsis without watching the movie/cliffnotes we can progress to that.
Wtf is the "beauty of language"? I can honestly say its phrases like that that always made me pissed off at English teachers, or later on in College, English Majors.
You are setting up strawman after strawman. There was zero people making the claim that making kids read Shakespeare is the priority over basic reading comprehension skills. All I did was lament an education system that doesn't easily place people in a position to connect with and appreciate literature that is meaningful to them, and you turn it into some strange argument encompassing everything from "I hate English majors" to "no one should read old books."
Indeed, I can defeat your argument (if there ever was a coherent one to begin with, a fact that is still very much in question) by simple virtue of reflecting on all those times I was enthralled by the so-called "beauty of language" that you abhor. I pity you for never experiencing something so simple and yet so fulfilling, to the point that the lack of said experience causes you to rattle off vapid comments with neither rhyme nor reason.
|
On October 08 2013 12:10 Slusher wrote:
Fuck I wish the Book Theif was standard literature when I was in high school, alas, it had not been written yet.
That book is great. It was one of the few books that made me incredibly sad when I finished.
|
Someone said it earlier - in the end, literature is entertainment. Everyone can find something that can be entertaining and individually fulfilling and meaningful, and that's enough. The problem is that the way the current system is set up isn't conducive to helping people find something that they can connect with.
One man's entertainment is another's snorefest. No current setup in a curriculum will ever change the fact that most kids don't like reading classic lit. That's not to say you can't teach them English literature in a fun manner, but not one that includes a huge pile of classic lit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
