|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
Yesterday, I finished reading Barbarians at the Gate, a tome containing over 500 pages of riveting prose, chronicling the (at the time) largest corporate takeover in history[1]. What I'm somewhat amazed about, is the fact that I managed to read over 400 pages over Saturday and Sunday; it may very well be the first time in my life that I have been able to consume so many pages over such a brief time frame. In my academic years, I remember consistently struggling with the reading assignments. I definitely didn't finish Ferinheight 451 or To Kill a Mockingbird during the years of mandatory education, and did close to the minimum reading possible to churn out assignments during college. Given such a shameful history of reading literary or academic material, why the sudden change now? One theory is that I have been reading so much more in recent years, both online and offline, that reading is no longer a high friction event for me. Reading is no longer a chore or a hassle, but a natural option for me to pass the time or absorb some new information. Is it people who have a natural propensity and attraction for reading the ones who read voraciously? Or is it people who are given some extrinsic reason to read voraciously the ones who develop a natural and innate love of doing so? I myself seem to be an embodiment of the latter, but I'd venture to guess that there are plenty of others who feel that they fall into the former category. A second theory for my newfound habit of page-flipping, is that the subjects of my reading are now derived from my interests. Looking back to my academic years, my perceived passion directed towards the sciences, while the humanities were more of an afterthought. As such, I certainly didn't want to devote the time and mindshare to subjects such as religion, literature, or philosophy. Even if there were things that I found fascinating about these courses, I chose to suppress the desire to devote more time to them; after all, most students of the engineering and scientific disciplines are rather pressed for time in those years[2]. I have been outside the academic environment for about four years now. During this time, my reading and studies have been driven not by the requirements set forth by my degree, but by my own personal and selfish interests. At times this has been aligned with my profession, but more often than not, the activities have been driven primarily by my personal interest in the subject, with perhaps a slight tertiary overlap with my current or future professional discipline. This alignment with my intrinsic interests could possibly be the catalyst behind my now rather respectable appetite for reading. Until now, I quite literally never read anything outside of my coursework, possibly because I had very little time, possibly because I had different priorities then. If the ability and desire to read is something that can be cultivated, then I must ask one question.
"How much of an advantage do such students have over those that do not, when entering an undergraduate or graduate program that is centered around reading?"
Won't some students have a massive advantage over others, much like how students who have taken calculus-based physics courses in high school will have a massive advantage over those that have not? In a skill as seemingly basic and universal (at least in college) as reading, there seems to be a great disparity in the amount of preparation a student has upon entering his academic program. Much attention has been given to preparing the student in the quantitative disciplines; could a similar need be hidden away from us with respect to reading? I certainly wish that I had somehow developed the willingness to read that I now possess, before the most crucial years of my formal studies; my abilities in this area were painfully underdeveloped compared to those of my peers. Something seems amiss. Education reformers and practitioners are always trying to instill enjoyment and proactivity in the math and sciences; but could they be overlooking an equally problematic lack of love and desire for reading in the other half of the student population? Having transformed my own reading habits, I am deeply suspicious of our current education system's ability to cultivate the ability to read in its students. [1] I've read my fair share of books featuring business stories, but I was blown away at the quality of writing (so far only matched by Roger Lowenstein) and the research that went into recreating such a complex interplay of personalities. [2] I believe that the sheer amount of coursework required from the engineering and science majors is a truly tragic situation that should honestly be rectified.
Crossposted from my main blog
 
|
I find myself in a dilemma at present, because my circumstances are quite the opposite of yours. During my young childhood (I'm now 18 btw) I read a lot of books, sometimes sitting for hours on end consuming reading material. The books were just so interesting, and since I was much of an introvert it was the thing I did most in my pastime, except for gaming of course. Almost anything I saw, be it short descriptions of something, signs in the streets, notice boards etc, I read them all with much interest. But nowadays I don't read books that often anymore. I've finished a few during the last couple of months, but it takes me longer than usual, because I would only read about 10 pages a day. I still read a lot online of course, but my book reading had been stinted as of late. It is very hard for me to start to read a book, seeing that I quickly lose interest after a while. Many a time I would read half way through a 500+-page book and just stop reading it altogether. I just wish that I can remedy the situation soon because I adore books a lot actually. Maybe I'll just have to put in more effort, and force myself a little, because there are so many interesting and enriching things to find within books.
|
It can hurt too. I read so much as a kid I didnt have to do shit at school for many years. I had no work ethic because of that. I think theres a proper time for everything, maybe reading excessively wouldve hindered ypur ability to study math.
|
On April 03 2012 01:18 ecstatica wrote:
It can hurt too. I read so much as a kid I didnt have to do shit at school for many years. I had no work ethic because of that. I think theres a proper time for everything, maybe reading excessively wouldve hindered ypur ability to study math.
You are so correct with that. I was the same, until my senior years in high school the work just wasn't that hard for me, so I barely studied for any test. But now I have a problem, because I'm in my final year and I cannot find a way to properly study for my end-year exams. In such a way it can be detrimental for you yes.
EDIT - Lately, I've also been struggling with math too, achieving less than average marks.
|
United States5162 Posts
It's my opinion that you can't instill a love or reading, math, or science. Just like you can't instill a love for poetry, sports, philosophy, or anything else. That's not to say that educators can't do a way better job at not instilling a hatred for the subjects, but I don't think there's anything you can do to make some people enjoy certain things.
|
Maybe if the reading materiel in school was different. I loved reading in school and still do now, but I could sympathise with the 15 year olds in my class who could not decipher any meaning out of Gatsby or Lord of the Flies. I don't know why they don't have more contemporary books early on. Like those new Hunger Games books. I haven't read them, but everyone seems to love them. In high school, isnt it more important to instil a love of reading than to get the classics done? Maybe read some classics in 12th grade, but let the kids enjoy themselves with easy stuff first- no?
|
(Sorry, kind of rambly.)
I was a voracious, though slow, reader before college. My parents would bring me to Barnes and Nobles every weekend going back to elementary school, and I would sit in the fantasy section for three to four hours at a time just reading whatever interesting books I could find. (I became very, very familiar with the fantasy genre as a result.) I also discovered a love for writing in middle school ... fantasy at first, go figure, and I started reading stuff that had to do with writing and the writing process -- started with Stephen King's On Writing, actually and fell into genre-specific (read: mostly fantasy) critiques, then went back to more general literary theory -- on my own after that to see what I could apply to my own writing.
I didn't like doing school readings though. I would do all of them, but the one issue I had with assigned readings (especially in high school) is that I quite frankly thought that most stories we were assigned were just shitty. Bad writing, bad characterization, bad plotting, with the only "good" point to the stories being the "deep message" they were carrying, and I didn't like -- still don't like -- those kinds of books. Part of this is rooted in my dislike of "message fantasy"; something I'd noticed during my scouring of the fantasy section is that those stories whose main purpose was to convey a message turned out to be poorly written, because they would let the message get in the way of the story and its characters. I still think it's a problem that many authors, esp. those who want to write something "meaningful," suffer from, and I have my own opinions about how to solve this issue from a writing perspective, but that'd be getting off-topic. Point being, since most of the classics we're forced to read in school fall into this category, I hated most of them, with only a few exceptions. A lot of my friends -- also voracious readers -- held the same view. It's just not good storytelling, subverting your story with a message, because in that case, you might as well just write a manifesto on your thoughts instead of having us trek through hundreds of pages of bad, winding prose. So, with my small sample size at least, I'm pretty sure even those who do like reading don't like the reading curriculum in HS and even MS. (I don't remember much about MS reading assignments tbh. Whirligig and The House on Mango Street left bad impressions on me, with the only good book I can remember being The Hobbit, which I chose myself for a book report, since I'd already finished reading LotR.)
I'm not sure how to "fix" this problem with our classics; even today, with a more mature mindset towards reading things that I might not necessarily enjoy, if you asked me about most of the readings I did in HS, I will still tell you that most books in the curriculum are, in my humble opinion, shit. But there's nothing to be done about it, because they are our classics, and people should read them at least once in their lifetimes, and it's sure as hell better to start off with Lord of the Flies than Plato and Aristotle, who would make even more students want to chuck the books out the window. It's already simplified enough and the texts are at least somewhat easy to understand -- or should be for HSers -- if a little painful to read. They offer the best we have in terms of critical, accessible material. Sure, the Hunger Games trilogy might be more "fun" for kids to read, but they are also popular trash novels (I say this with fondness for much "popular trash") and wrestling out a theme from the Hunger Games would actually be much more difficult than wrestling one out of Lord of the Flies, thanks to the lack of subtlety present in most of our classic lit ...
Anyways, I don't have time to do much pleasure reading anymore, now that I'm in college. During the school year, I'm limited to pretty much my academic readings. During the breaks though, I always try to read at least 100 pages a day of stuff that I enjoy, which sometimes coincides with my academic interests, sometimes doesn't, but it keeps the love for the page alive. There are some books that are more modern and/or enjoyable and deep enough (also better written than most lit, IMO!) that I think could be made part of the curriculum* ... but of course, I don't get to decide that.
* Off the top of my head, Steven Brust's Teckla offers an interesting look at Marxism and class conflict, is well written, and is just a fun romp to read. Most of Guy Gavriel Kay's books are historical analogues that have additional themes woven throughout the story. You can write academic dissertations on his Fionavar trilogy and its relationship to LotR, its themes of sacrifice, its archetypes, and they are relatively short to boot! The Song of Arbonne can spawn essays on the portrayal of female characters, sexuality, etc., while The Last Light of the Sun's theme of fate and choice is so self-evident it makes you sometimes want to strangle GGK. So much shit you can do with GGK's books, and he's such a pleasure to read as well. But of course, we'll just default to House of Mirth instead. Don't even ask me how The Road found its way in. -.-
|
I have read, and am still ready many books, since I was young. Lately, exclusively in English. I don't know if it has benefited me in some ways, but I do know I have always had an above average vocabulary and reading speed if this is because I have read a lot, I don't know. I do know my fast reading speed whilst still being able to comprehend the information is extremely helpful during either English and or Dutch reading comprehension tests. It allows for much more time to be spent on thinking the questions and answers through. Being able to read well and precise is a very helpfull skill in any subject, I believe. When trying to understand something Math related and all that is to your desposal is text because your teacher is ill. It's very important you can slow down your reading and try to truly understand what is written.
|
Your suspicions are probably correct. From my educational experience (current Senior in HS), no English teacher ever tried to make students get better at reading. It was either you knew how to or you didn't know how. And given the current method of splitting up kids into "honors/AP/IB" and "non-honors" classes, it just compounded the problem. Teachers who taught non-honors classes didn't really care about whether or not their students were truly getting better (I've been a teacher's assistant in one and sat through a lot of others due to scheduling conflicts), while teachers in the higher level classes never really tried to teach them how to read because they assumed that all the kids in the class already knew how (why else would they be in a higher level course?).
In addition, the books they assign you aren't exactly the best books to read to make you enjoy reading. Sure there are some gems such as Catcher in the Rye, but most of it was Shakespeare, Hawthorne, and other "classics" that most kids who haven't read a book for leisure ever in their life would not understand. Those who were good at reading and enjoyed it just slugged there way through books they hated and devoured those they liked. But the others, which was the majority, just skimmed through it and read Sparknotes the day before the test. The teacher would just give a quiz or an essay, and that be it. Or they would try to hold discussions, but it was impossible to weed out those who couldn't read (or didn't enjoy it) because those who actually read would participate to make sure they had some material for essays (and avoid the wrath of an angry teacher). And this is only in honors classes mind you. In non-honors classes, I've seen teachers READ to the students as if they were in Kindergarten. It's ridiculous.
Perhaps the reason why we let poor reading slip by under the radar in the American education system (and it does slip by don't get me wrong. I've seen kids who are math whizzes in high level calculus classes unable to understand novels of not even great difficulty) is because we don't see reading as a teachable skill. What is there to teach? As long as you can read the words on the page, there is nothing else to teach really. How do you teach reading comprehension? That is just gained from reading and reading and reading constantly, is it not? How do you expand a student's capacity to imagine? Is it not gained from reading books that spark the imagination?
But those are things that must be done since a young age, in my opinion. The schools can only nudge a student in the direction to read, but they must find that passion for themselves.
Aside: As terrible as the assigned reading might be, the classics are classics for a reason. Maybe it pioneered a genre, or it was the first to give a certain insight into the human condition. Or maybe it is a shining example of a mastery of the English language. Whatever the case may be, there is a reason why those books and plays have stood the test of time and are still read today. It will be quite shameful to reduce the reading curriculum to reading Young Adult fiction. The Hunger Games, and others like it, have no place in the classroom. There is nothing to be learned from them. Imagine Twilight being assigned reading *shudders.* Students are always welcome to read such books on their own free time though.
|
On April 03 2012 07:18 nohbrows wrote:
Aside: As terrible as the assigned reading might be, the classics are classics for a reason. Maybe it pioneered a genre, or it was the first to give a certain insight into the human condition. Or maybe it is a shining example of a mastery of the English language. Whatever the case may be, there is a reason why those books and plays have stood the test of time and are still read today. It will be quite shameful to reduce the reading curriculum to reading Young Adult fiction. The Hunger Games, and others like it, have no place in the classroom. There is nothing to be learned from them. Imagine Twilight being assigned reading *shudders.* Students are always welcome to read such books on their own free time though.
I wasn't saying that the classics don't have value. I read mostly classics, and hardly ever pick up contemporary hits (Game of Throne being an exception- that shit is good). I'm just saying if you can hook young adults on reading, they'll get themselves to the point where they can appreciate classics. Young adults like young adult fiction. I continued to say that only during very late high-school and early college should you bring out the classics. Dickens and Hemingway weren't writing stories for 14 year olds, they were aimed at adults. The jump between childhood novels and classics in my education was pretty jarring (it hit others worse than me), and that jump could be less of a shock if they bridged the gap with contemporary fiction that teens wanted to read. I've seen first hand how when forced to read classics, teens respond with revulsion and distaste. Its not their fault, they are just young.
While I agree with you that the classics are classic for a reason, I think you totally misunderstood what I was saying.
|
On April 03 2012 07:45 Lexpar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 07:18 nohbrows wrote:
Aside: As terrible as the assigned reading might be, the classics are classics for a reason. Maybe it pioneered a genre, or it was the first to give a certain insight into the human condition. Or maybe it is a shining example of a mastery of the English language. Whatever the case may be, there is a reason why those books and plays have stood the test of time and are still read today. It will be quite shameful to reduce the reading curriculum to reading Young Adult fiction. The Hunger Games, and others like it, have no place in the classroom. There is nothing to be learned from them. Imagine Twilight being assigned reading *shudders.* Students are always welcome to read such books on their own free time though.
I wasn't saying that the classics don't have value. I read mostly classics, and hardly ever pick up contemporary hits (Game of Throne being an exception- that shit is good). I'm just saying if you can hook young adults on reading, they'll get themselves to the point where they can appreciate classics. Young adults like young adult fiction. I continued to say that only during very late high-school and early college should you bring out the classics. Dickens and Hemingway weren't writing stories for 14 year olds, they were aimed at adults. The jump between childhood novels and classics in my education was pretty jarring (it hit others worse than me), and that jump could be less of a shock if they bridged the gap with contemporary fiction that teens wanted to read. I've seen first hand how when forced to read classics, teens respond with revulsion and distaste. Its not their fault, they are just young. While I agree with you that the classics are classic for a reason, I think you totally misunderstood what I was saying.
To be fair, I was not specifically responding to your idea specifically, but the idea of changing the curriculum in general. I chose The Hunger Games as the specific example because it is the most popular Young Adult novel out there at the moment, but I've heard similar arguments from my peers many times while in High School. But if there was any misunderstanding I caused or am guilty of, I do apologize.
But I think there is a danger to letting kids get away with reading such material for a class, simply because once they get a taste for trashy teen romance or adventure novels, they'll refuse to read anything else. The same way a person who has only listened to k-pop for most of their life will find much of classical music boring. Not all classics were made the same of course. I disagree with assigning Shakespeare to freshmen, simply because Shakespeare is quite difficult to read, but I don't object to giving them Hemingway or Steinbeck.
|
On April 03 2012 07:54 nohbrows wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 07:45 Lexpar wrote:On April 03 2012 07:18 nohbrows wrote:
Aside: As terrible as the assigned reading might be, the classics are classics for a reason. Maybe it pioneered a genre, or it was the first to give a certain insight into the human condition. Or maybe it is a shining example of a mastery of the English language. Whatever the case may be, there is a reason why those books and plays have stood the test of time and are still read today. It will be quite shameful to reduce the reading curriculum to reading Young Adult fiction. The Hunger Games, and others like it, have no place in the classroom. There is nothing to be learned from them. Imagine Twilight being assigned reading *shudders.* Students are always welcome to read such books on their own free time though.
I wasn't saying that the classics don't have value. I read mostly classics, and hardly ever pick up contemporary hits (Game of Throne being an exception- that shit is good). I'm just saying if you can hook young adults on reading, they'll get themselves to the point where they can appreciate classics. Young adults like young adult fiction. I continued to say that only during very late high-school and early college should you bring out the classics. Dickens and Hemingway weren't writing stories for 14 year olds, they were aimed at adults. The jump between childhood novels and classics in my education was pretty jarring (it hit others worse than me), and that jump could be less of a shock if they bridged the gap with contemporary fiction that teens wanted to read. I've seen first hand how when forced to read classics, teens respond with revulsion and distaste. Its not their fault, they are just young. While I agree with you that the classics are classic for a reason, I think you totally misunderstood what I was saying. To be fair, I was not specifically responding to your idea specifically, but the idea of changing the curriculum in general. I chose The Hunger Games as the specific example because it is the most popular Young Adult novel out there at the moment, but I've heard similar arguments from my peers many times while in High School. But if there was any misunderstanding I caused or am guilty of, I do apologize. But I think there is a danger to letting kids get away with reading such material for a class, simply because once they get a taste for trashy teen romance or adventure novels, they'll refuse to read anything else. The same way a person who has only listened to k-pop for most of their life will find much of classical music boring. Not all classics were made the same of course. I disagree with assigning Shakespeare to freshmen, simply because Shakespeare is quite difficult to read, but I don't object to giving them Hemingway or Steinbeck.
I don't think there is anything wrong with assigning more enjoyable books to pick up, but only if there is something you can learn from the book. Having not read Hunger Games, I can't speak to that, so let's say books of the Harry Potter or the Percy Jackson type, where there is no noticeable, well-woven structure or theme you can talk about that does not make you roll your eyes because it is so obvious ... though tbf, this is often the case with most classic literature anyways, with their only selling(?) point being that they are difficult to read and sometimes expose kids to concepts or ideas they are not yet aware of. Anyways, the curriculum is also changed every year as new books come out; The Road was added when I was in my junior year, for instance, and Poisonwood Bible a few years before that. It's just too bad that they usually don't choose enjoyable and complex books that have material for you to sink your teeth into, which both encourages a love of reading and teaches kids how to analyze what they're reading. (Though I admittedly did enjoy The Poisonwood Bible. That said, I remember either the last third or second half turning into the author preaching to the readers about some political message that I don't recall, but at least it was interesting, and Kingsolver if nothing else has a way with words.)
Also, equating trashy teen romance novels with adventure novels is unfair. Don't forget that Dumas wrote some of the most fantastic adventure novels even by today's standards, and Tolkien's an absolute classic. I have honestly learned more about writing, characterization, and overall literary theory from fantasy adventure novels than from most "classic literature."
As for Shakespeare ... the problem with assigning Shakespeare is not necessarily because he's difficult to read, but because he's not meant to be read. His plays are meant to be performed and seen. Unfortunately, most teachers just assign students a part and ask them to read out lines, which is even worse than just reading his plays, IMO, and the fastest way to make even those who like reading hate his work. (Sitting through students recite his lines in monotone is ridiculously boring.) I only started appreciating him after I'd seen his work on a stage.
|
Wow, um no offense Mr Haji man but you sure posted a lot for someone who didn't like to read. I think a lot of it comes down to whether you enjoy reading or not. Like any skill it requires patience and work to get right. So you have to be motivated to get better before it becomes really enjoyable. No-one likes stumbling through stuff but if you don't try you won't improve. I think you are right in that if the content is sufficiently engaging you will put up with the struggle until it becomes less difficult. So your online reading and change of content probably helped ease you into more reading.
I mean forum posts are generally short and easy to understand so that lowers the barrier to engaging. If nothing else you have made up for it since then 
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On April 03 2012 01:15 NeThZOR wrote:
I find myself in a dilemma at present, because my circumstances are quite the opposite of yours. During my young childhood (I'm now 18 btw) I read a lot of books, sometimes sitting for hours on end consuming reading material. The books were just so interesting, and since I was much of an introvert it was the thing I did most in my pastime, except for gaming of course. Almost anything I saw, be it short descriptions of something, signs in the streets, notice boards etc, I read them all with much interest. But nowadays I don't read books that often anymore. I've finished a few during the last couple of months, but it takes me longer than usual, because I would only read about 10 pages a day. I still read a lot online of course, but my book reading had been stinted as of late. It is very hard for me to start to read a book, seeing that I quickly lose interest after a while. Many a time I would read half way through a 500+-page book and just stop reading it altogether. I just wish that I can remedy the situation soon because I adore books a lot actually. Maybe I'll just have to put in more effort, and force myself a little, because there are so many interesting and enriching things to find within books.
What kind of books do you read currently? Why do you think you were so interested in books before, but are jaded now? Could it be because your interests have changed but you keep reading the same kind of stuff you always have? Is it because you have read so much that you now have foresight into the prose? It might be worthwhile to employ something like the Five whys technique to see where the root of your issues are, and think of some possible remedies to what you find.
On April 03 2012 01:18 ecstatica wrote:
It can hurt too. I read so much as a kid I didnt have to do shit at school for many years. I had no work ethic because of that. I think theres a proper time for everything, maybe reading excessively wouldve hindered ypur ability to study math.
I think that's very possible. The reason I was comparatively good at math when i was younger, was because I attended two schools (American and Japanese) and I got a double dose of math. Because I did 2x more than the average kid, I was that much better -__-
On April 03 2012 01:20 NeThZOR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 01:18 ecstatica wrote:
It can hurt too. I read so much as a kid I didnt have to do shit at school for many years. I had no work ethic because of that. I think theres a proper time for everything, maybe reading excessively wouldve hindered ypur ability to study math. You are so correct with that. I was the same, until my senior years in high school the work just wasn't that hard for me, so I barely studied for any test. But now I have a problem, because I'm in my final year and I cannot find a way to properly study for my end-year exams. In such a way it can be detrimental for you yes. EDIT - Lately, I've also been struggling with math too, achieving less than average marks.
It was 7th grade when I faced that; first time I ever got a B in math, and the first time I almost got a C in class (Civics).
Of course, I'd go on to get a C in Quantum Mechanics and Biochemistry during college lol
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On April 03 2012 01:25 Myles wrote:
It's my opinion that you can't instill a love or reading, math, or science. Just like you can't instill a love for poetry, sports, philosophy, or anything else. That's not to say that educators can't do a way better job at not instilling a hatred for the subjects, but I don't think there's anything you can do to make some people enjoy certain things.
I think one way to do it, is to not suddenly jump the fence to the other side, but slowly pivot your way over. If you like math and science, read about great stories about math and science. Feynman's books are wonderful in that regard.
As my coder friends say, "build something that you have a burning desire to build" in order to learn how to program.
On April 03 2012 02:21 Lexpar wrote:
Maybe if the reading materiel in school was different. I loved reading in school and still do now, but I could sympathise with the 15 year olds in my class who could not decipher any meaning out of Gatsby or Lord of the Flies. I don't know why they don't have more contemporary books early on. Like those new Hunger Games books. I haven't read them, but everyone seems to love them. In high school, isnt it more important to instil a love of reading than to get the classics done? Maybe read some classics in 12th grade, but let the kids enjoy themselves with easy stuff first- no?
Ironically I enjoyed Gatsby and The Lord of the Flies, but I agree with what you're saying, 100%.
On April 03 2012 04:59 babylon wrote:
(Sorry, kind of rambly.)
I was a voracious, though slow, reader before college. My parents would bring me to Barnes and Nobles every weekend going back to elementary school, and I would sit in the fantasy section for three to four hours at a time just reading whatever interesting books I could find. (I became very, very familiar with the fantasy genre as a result.) I also discovered a love for writing in middle school ... fantasy at first, go figure, and I started reading stuff that had to do with writing and the writing process -- started with Stephen King's On Writing, actually and fell into genre-specific (read: mostly fantasy) critiques, then went back to more general literary theory -- on my own after that to see what I could apply to my own writing.
This is one reason why perhaps we should lament the demise of the brick and mortar book store.
Then again, we still have the library (for now).
I didn't like doing school readings though. I would do all of them, but the one issue I had with assigned readings (especially in high school) is that I quite frankly thought that most stories we were assigned were just shitty. Bad writing, bad characterization, bad plotting, with the only "good" point to the stories being the "deep message" they were carrying, and I didn't like -- still don't like -- those kinds of books. Part of this is rooted in my dislike of "message fantasy"; something I'd noticed during my scouring of the fantasy section is that those stories whose main purpose was to convey a message turned out to be poorly written, because they would let the message get in the way of the story and its characters. I still think it's a problem that many authors, esp. those who want to write something "meaningful," suffer from, and I have my own opinions about how to solve this issue from a writing perspective, but that'd be getting off-topic. Point being, since most of the classics we're forced to read in school fall into this category, I hated most of them, with only a few exceptions. A lot of my friends -- also voracious readers -- held the same view. It's just not good storytelling, subverting your story with a message, because in that case, you might as well just write a manifesto on your thoughts instead of having us trek through hundreds of pages of bad, winding prose. So, with my small sample size at least, I'm pretty sure even those who do like reading don't like the reading curriculum in HS and even MS. (I don't remember much about MS reading assignments tbh. Whirligig and The House on Mango Street left bad impressions on me, with the only good book I can remember being The Hobbit, which I chose myself for a book report, since I'd already finished reading LotR.)
I'm not sure how to "fix" this problem with our classics; even today, with a more mature mindset towards reading things that I might not necessarily enjoy, if you asked me about most of the readings I did in HS, I will still tell you that most books in the curriculum are, in my humble opinion, shit. But there's nothing to be done about it, because they are our classics, and people should read them at least once in their lifetimes, and it's sure as hell better to start off with Lord of the Flies than Plato and Aristotle, who would make even more students want to chuck the books out the window. It's already simplified enough and the texts are at least somewhat easy to understand -- or should be for HSers -- if a little painful to read. They offer the best we have in terms of critical, accessible material. Sure, the Hunger Games trilogy might be more "fun" for kids to read, but they are also popular trash novels (I say this with fondness for much "popular trash") and wrestling out a theme from the Hunger Games would actually be much more difficult than wrestling one out of Lord of the Flies, thanks to the lack of subtlety present in most of our classic lit ...
Anyways, I don't have time to do much pleasure reading anymore, now that I'm in college. During the school year, I'm limited to pretty much my academic readings. During the breaks though, I always try to read at least 100 pages a day of stuff that I enjoy, which sometimes coincides with my academic interests, sometimes doesn't, but it keeps the love for the page alive. There are some books that are more modern and/or enjoyable and deep enough (also better written than most lit, IMO!) that I think could be made part of the curriculum* ... but of course, I don't get to decide that.
* Off the top of my head, Steven Brust's Teckla offers an interesting look at Marxism and class conflict, is well written, and is just a fun romp to read. Most of Guy Gavriel Kay's books are historical analogues that have additional themes woven throughout the story. You can write academic dissertations on his Fionavar trilogy and its relationship to LotR, its themes of sacrifice, its archetypes, and they are relatively short to boot! The Song of Arbonne can spawn essays on the portrayal of female characters, sexuality, etc., while The Last Light of the Sun's theme of fate and choice is so self-evident it makes you sometimes want to strangle GGK. So much shit you can do with GGK's books, and he's such a pleasure to read as well. But of course, we'll just default to House of Mirth instead. Don't even ask me how The Road found its way in. -.-
I don't have much to comment, but I enjoyed reading your post 
Btw something just came to mind, do you think it'd be interesting to go deep into the crevasses of the school library, and find fiction writing theses of former students? The quality might be C material, but I feel like for someone who has the mileage on reading, it could be a curious exercise.
On April 03 2012 07:18 nohbrows wrote:
Your suspicions are probably correct. From my educational experience (current Senior in HS), no English teacher ever tried to make students get better at reading. It was either you knew how to or you didn't know how. And given the current method of splitting up kids into "honors/AP/IB" and "non-honors" classes, it just compounded the problem. Teachers who taught non-honors classes didn't really care about whether or not their students were truly getting better (I've been a teacher's assistant in one and sat through a lot of others due to scheduling conflicts), while teachers in the higher level classes never really tried to teach them how to read because they assumed that all the kids in the class already knew how (why else would they be in a higher level course?).
In addition, the books they assign you aren't exactly the best books to read to make you enjoy reading. Sure there are some gems such as Catcher in the Rye, but most of it was Shakespeare, Hawthorne, and other "classics" that most kids who haven't read a book for leisure ever in their life would not understand. Those who were good at reading and enjoyed it just slugged there way through books they hated and devoured those they liked. But the others, which was the majority, just skimmed through it and read Sparknotes the day before the test. The teacher would just give a quiz or an essay, and that be it. Or they would try to hold discussions, but it was impossible to weed out those who couldn't read (or didn't enjoy it) because those who actually read would participate to make sure they had some material for essays (and avoid the wrath of an angry teacher). And this is only in honors classes mind you. In non-honors classes, I've seen teachers READ to the students as if they were in Kindergarten. It's ridiculous.
Perhaps the reason why we let poor reading slip by under the radar in the American education system (and it does slip by don't get me wrong. I've seen kids who are math whizzes in high level calculus classes unable to understand novels of not even great difficulty) is because we don't see reading as a teachable skill. What is there to teach? As long as you can read the words on the page, there is nothing else to teach really. How do you teach reading comprehension? That is just gained from reading and reading and reading constantly, is it not? How do you expand a student's capacity to imagine? Is it not gained from reading books that spark the imagination?
But those are things that must be done since a young age, in my opinion. The schools can only nudge a student in the direction to read, but they must find that passion for themselves.
Aside: As terrible as the assigned reading might be, the classics are classics for a reason. Maybe it pioneered a genre, or it was the first to give a certain insight into the human condition. Or maybe it is a shining example of a mastery of the English language. Whatever the case may be, there is a reason why those books and plays have stood the test of time and are still read today. It will be quite shameful to reduce the reading curriculum to reading Young Adult fiction. The Hunger Games, and others like it, have no place in the classroom. There is nothing to be learned from them. Imagine Twilight being assigned reading *shudders.* Students are always welcome to read such books on their own free time though.
Might it not be possible for elementary schools to instill "reading skills" in kids? I wonder.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On April 03 2012 10:35 Probulous wrote:Wow, um no offense Mr Haji man but you sure posted a lot for someone who didn't like to read. I think a lot of it comes down to whether you enjoy reading or not. Like any skill it requires patience and work to get right. So you have to be motivated to get better before it becomes really enjoyable. No-one likes stumbling through stuff but if you don't try you won't improve. I think you are right in that if the content is sufficiently engaging you will put up with the struggle until it becomes less difficult. So your online reading and change of content probably helped ease you into more reading. I mean forum posts are generally short and easy to understand so that lowers the barrier to engaging. If nothing else you have made up for it since then
well forum posts can be proactively spawned, and while it's somewhat correlated with reading, it doesn't necessarily have to be
|
On here it is generally recommended. The ban list is well over 1000 pages and many have found themselves there for not following that recommendation. I love reading which is probably why I am still here 
|
Reading for interest rather than for a grade (or whatever the mandatory reason may be) is definitely a huge factor in why we may find it so difficult to read a short book in school yet devour a dictionary in mere days. In fact, this is something that affects many, many areas of our lives, school as a whole being an example. Why do students always procrastinate so much yet are able to indulge in studying new Starcraft builds and replays? In essence, the action is the same: learning. One may argue that games are a form of joyous entertainment while school is not but this is slightly incorrect. Entertainment comes from having an interest in the subject at hand, the same reason why we might love one game but hate another. In the end, we all too easily dedicate copious amounts of time to that which best holds our interest but find it difficult to even take a look at that which does not even if the medium is the same.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On April 03 2012 12:51 KazeHydra wrote:
Reading for interest rather than for a grade (or whatever the mandatory reason may be) is definitely a huge factor in why we may find it so difficult to read a short book in school yet devour a dictionary in mere days. In fact, this is something that affects many, many areas of our lives, school as a whole being an example. Why do students always procrastinate so much yet are able to indulge in studying new Starcraft builds and replays? In essence, the action is the same: learning. One may argue that games are a form of joyous entertainment while school is not but this is slightly incorrect. Entertainment comes from having an interest in the subject at hand, the same reason why we might love one game but hate another. In the end, we all too easily dedicate copious amounts of time to that which best holds our interest but find it difficult to even take a look at that which does not even if the medium is the same.
An interesting question to ask then, is "how can we take the enjoyment aspect from games, and leverage them in our scholastic endeavors?"
One of the reasons I loved math as a child was because it was a game for me. Racing against the clock in putting together number tables, competing against the class to see who could write the most multiples of 13 in 60 seconds, finishing the test in 10 minutes so that I could go solve number puzzles in the back of the room (the kind where you use tiles from 0 to 9 to fill out equations), competing against a friend to see who could finish all the questions in a textbook faster (he won, it took him about 3 months), it was a competitive game for me. I still see math as a puzzle to be solved (probably why I suck at pure math - I can't figure out how to solve it because my fundamentals are so weak); how can we extend such effects to other areas? Alternatively, do others see this kind of game-like essence in their studies in other subjects?
|
On April 03 2012 12:58 thedeadhaji wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 12:51 KazeHydra wrote:
Reading for interest rather than for a grade (or whatever the mandatory reason may be) is definitely a huge factor in why we may find it so difficult to read a short book in school yet devour a dictionary in mere days. In fact, this is something that affects many, many areas of our lives, school as a whole being an example. Why do students always procrastinate so much yet are able to indulge in studying new Starcraft builds and replays? In essence, the action is the same: learning. One may argue that games are a form of joyous entertainment while school is not but this is slightly incorrect. Entertainment comes from having an interest in the subject at hand, the same reason why we might love one game but hate another. In the end, we all too easily dedicate copious amounts of time to that which best holds our interest but find it difficult to even take a look at that which does not even if the medium is the same. An interesting question to ask then, is "how can we take the enjoyment aspect from games, and leverage them in our scholastic endeavors?" One of the reasons I loved math as a child was because it was a game for me. Racing against the clock in putting together number tables, competing against the class to see who could write the most multiples of 13 in 60 seconds, finishing the test in 10 minutes so that I could go solve number puzzles in the back of the room (the kind where you use tiles from 0 to 9 to fill out equations), competing against a friend to see who could finish all the questions in a textbook faster (he won, it took him about 3 months), it was a competitive game for me. I still see math as a puzzle to be solved (probably why I suck at pure math - I can't figure out how to solve it because my fundamentals are so weak); how can we extend such effects to other areas? Alternatively, do others see this kind of game-like essence in their studies in other subjects?
Definitely a very important question that teachers are faced with.
I recall one of my history teachers having a weekly jeopardy game and the winning teams would get a little extra credit. That gave both motivation and entertainment. I think the competition aspect is the key factor in creating entertaining games out of academic settings. Be it children, teenagers, or adults, don't we all get some sort of self-satisfaction, whatever level it may be, out of defeating an opponent? I know there is some kind of political correctness issue here along the lines of "we can't have losers in school" but that has, I think, caused a downfall in creating games out of schoolwork because of the inevitable "loser." However, I now also recall game-like settings where each math question led to part of an answer to a puzzle and only by correctly completing all the math questions could you complete the puzzle. A simple yet effective way to implement a solo game into learning; I don't see why this particular method could not be used for other subjects, though I suppose it would get old and boring quite quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
