|
On October 08 2013 12:15 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Boom, we're back to the beginning. My whole point was that I firmly believe that so-called "classics" span so much stuff that it's inconceivable one cannot find something in that vast repository that is personally satisfying. The problem is not the classics, it's the way the system is set up - it not only does nothing to aid you to find something you like, it downright prevents it. The fallacy is grouping "classic lit" into a monolithic entity when it is the exact opposite.
|
On October 08 2013 12:15 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Moving away from Shakespeare might help. Shakespeare was always some of the most boring parts of English classes, but I don't have an answer how you can inspire children/teenagers to actively read important pieces of literature short of themselves wanting to do so.
|
Apparently a new wave of Hearthstone invites went out today.
Anyone get in so I can be mad at you?
|
On October 08 2013 12:19 Nos- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:15 wei2coolman wrote: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. Moving away from Shakespeare might help. Shakespeare was always some of the most boring parts of English classes, but I don't have an answer how you can inspire children/teenagers to actively read important pieces of literature short of themselves wanting to do so.
The one portion of clutz's incoherent ramblings that I will agree with is that Shakespeare is very poorly taught. There is much to be said to seeing them performed.
As I mentioned earlier, Shakespeare was, for the longest time, regarded as low culture, not unlike "pop culture" today. The reason? Because Shakespeare, to quote Jonson, knew "little Latin and less Greek;" that is to say, Shakespeare was not an ivory tower aristocrat who required footnotes explaining the copious Latin references in his plays (see: Marlowe). Shakespeare's draw, and his lasting appeal, is his ability to craft characters and scenarios that are universal - they can appeal to anyone from the King of England to the drunk lowlifes that constituted a large portion of the regular audience at the Globe. There is no reason that universal appeal should suddenly stop in the 21st century when it lasted for hundreds of years after Shakespeare's death, other than the abysmal anti-intellectualism and poor curriculum set-up that plagues American schools.
The argument of "the times are changing" and "people simply aren't interested" is a cop-out and reflective of an unwillingness, whether driven by ideology or by practicality, of addressing the actual issue.
None of this, of course, is actually relevant in any way. After all, literature, words, language, and culture are all merely artificial constructs. Culture and literature existed before Shakespeare, and will exist after. When the sun expands and swallows the Earth, the inability of teenagers to appreciate Shakespeare will be low on the list of concerns. I am merely lamenting the fact that not everyone can derive as much pleasure from such meaningless constructs as I can 
|
United States15536 Posts
On October 08 2013 12:21 WaveofShadow wrote:
Apparently a new wave of Hearthstone invites went out today.
Anyone get in so I can be mad at you?
...nope.
T_T
Now I'm mad at everyone.
Especially Req.
|
Speaking of which Hearthstone is really fun.
|
if closed beta goes on much longer I'm just goin to break down and buy MTG:O
|
On October 08 2013 10:33 Haiq343 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 10:17 Zergneedsfood wrote: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.
This is generally fair, albeit simplified (though I suspect it's out of convenience and not out of ignorance). Haiq posts as someone who has some reasonable views on the topic, which is refreshing. It seems especially reasonable after reading the cliche invectives dished out by someone whose primary motivation seems to be his poor personal experience with some high school English classes~
|
I had quite a few litgasms in this thread today.
|
On October 08 2013 12:12 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:
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."
EXCEPT its not a strawman argument when the majority of people being forced to read Shakespeare DONT have basic reading skills, and it just further cements to them that they dont have those and cannot achieve them.
I am blessed that, despite my abhorrence for every English class I took, I got 36/32(3?) on the Reading/English sections of the ACT, and 700 on the SAT English. All that means is that I would have succeeded no matter what. But what about someone of less talent than me (99+% of the high school population), who have the same distaste? They are not catered to in the least because of this perverse fascination with works that people like me don't like.
In fact, I think that the selected readings by English teachers is a huge part of the current gender gap in achievement, because I don't know many girls that hate these readings nearly as much as the guys in the classroom.
|
What are you even saying right now?
|
On October 08 2013 12:35 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:12 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:
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."
EXCEPT its not a strawman argument when the majority of people being forced to read Shakespeare DONT have basic reading skills, and it just further cements to them that they dont have those and cannot achieve them. I am blessed that, despite my abhorrence for every English class I took, I got 36/32(3?) on the Reading/English sections of the ACT, and 700 on the SAT English. All that means is that I would have succeeded no matter what. But what about someone of less talent than me (99+% of the high school population), who have the same distaste? They are not catered to in the least because of this perverse fascination with works that people like me don't like. In fact, I think that the selected readings by English teachers is a huge part of the current gender gap in achievement, because I don't know many girls that hate these readings nearly as much as the guys in the classroom.
You're turning a simple observation/minor grievance of how classic lit is taught into a broad, overarching pseudo-debate about the entire US public education system, designed entirely to flaunt your own supposed intelligence and dismiss that which you do not understand.
On October 08 2013 12:39 Nos- wrote:
What are you even saying right now?
As I said earlier, he's throwing out ideas that are at best tangentially related in the hope that something will stick. Straight out of the "how to BS on the internet on topics you don't understand" playbook!
|
On October 08 2013 12:29 Requizen wrote:
Speaking of which Hearthstone is really fun.
I know OT is for shitposting, but holy crap Req you take it to a whole new level. When you're not image spamming, you're bitching about something in your life, when you're not doing that, you're shamelessly promoting your stream, and when you're not doing that, you're going "look at it me! look at me! I got into Hearthstone beta! look at me!". Please return to GD and QQ about how bad you are at LoL.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
No. I seriously don't get how you can defend "teaching" Shakespeare to someone who couldn't write a news report about his gym class.
|
lol@ the Gender gap argument.
|
On October 08 2013 12:43 Slusher wrote:
lol@ the Gender gap argument.
That was probably the one thing that made me go "huh?" the most
|
to be fair I can't actually argue against it without getting equally anecdotal but it does not match my life experience at all.
|
On October 08 2013 12:42 caelym wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:29 Requizen wrote:
Speaking of which Hearthstone is really fun. I know OT is for shitposting, but holy crap Req you take it to a whole new level. When you're not image spamming, you're bitching about something in your life, when you're not doing that, you're shamelessly promoting your stream, and when you're not doing that, you're going "look at it me! look at me! I got into Hearthstone beta! look at me!". Please return to GD and QQ about how bad you are at LoL.
Damn caelym.
|
On October 08 2013 12:46 Slusher wrote:
to be fair I can't actually argue against it without getting equally anecdotal but it does not match my life experience at all.
Your life experience is dudes really liking Romeo and Juliet while chicks hate it?
Edit, almost a bad example because Mercutio is the only good character in that play, and he is kinda a badass.
|
If we're talking about Shakespeare, can we at least agree on one thing? Reading plays if fucking terrible. You could argue as much as you want about Shakespeare being a good playwright or whatever, but god is reading any of his plays (not going to say all plays, haven't read everything) just not good for teaching children.
Now, about the whole classics/teaching stuff:
I agree and disagree. Having books spanning all ages gives students a chance to learn about all sorts of different styles, different settings, and numerous examples of multiple literary techniques. Comparing and contrasting texts from different time periods really helps to get an understanding of the evolution of literature, as well as how things stayed the same.
I JUST WISH SCHOOLS WOULD FOCUS MORE ON THE BOLDED PART. Clutz is right about this (unless I missed the point of his argument), in that teachers hammer shit that some don't want to read A SHIT TON OF TIMES.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
