in my last english exam ever I thought I did pretty well on the poetry bit
got the exam back and got like 3/20 or something for that section, stupid arbitrary bullshit
sciences majors...
To be fair, there is a lot of arbitrary bullshit in English classes.
I like to think I do well enough in them to speak with some minuscule measure of authority.
The work itself has fair to good odds of being about something, having concrete meaning, all that.
But what the teacher wants back is, sadly, not always related to the work itself.
chances are you don't understand the work in question
i just got done marking a bunch of stupid fucking exams, and most of them had the same tone as this post
Fair enough.
Sometimes I am totally off base in judging a work.
Not thinking of my bad grades here. My bad ones are almost always earned. Thinking of good ones with glowing compliments where I knew I was randomly spouting bullshit.
And I may have implied that was a majority when it's more a minority. But I have ran into some arbitrary lit classes, and arbitrary portions of generally good classes. Of course, some to most of those could be entirely my faults in perception.
Well I mean
If you are in school, chances are you're a pretentious asshole
And as such cannot accept that perhaps somebody who has extensively studied a particular subject for the purposes of teaching it may have some insight into the symbols in a work that they themselves do not have
Also because there's no way to tell what the heck the author meant and it's entirely possible the curtains were just fucking blue
the basic problem with shit like that is that it assumes that english is like math, with a clear-cut algorithm that reliably comes to the same answer every time given the same set of data
there is no right or wrong answer in english, only answers that are well-argued and not
What was really fun was reading an excerpt from A Modest Proposal
The parts that were played straight
Then the teacher told us that we were idiots if we didn't pick up on the sarcasm
And then a year later I read the essay in its entirety and noticed the final paragraphs, in which the sarcasm actually becomes clear
And everything fell into place
Doesn't that work out to mean that the teacher also doesn't know what the author means and is pulling shit out his/her ass too?
chances are the teacher is backing up their claim with evidence from the rest of the text
although a lot of people think introductory english lit is about telling people what books are about, really it's about demonstrating ways to think about sets of knowledge and to find certain patterns given source material
so when they're saying that blue curtains mean depression, they're also trying to get you to see that curtains cover a vantage point, that blue has connotations as a colour, and that often the best writing is the kind that you can't take at face value, because the enjoyment comes from thinking about aspects of the writing and coming to a realization about how they work within the broader story
If you are in school, chances are you're a pretentious asshole
thanks for playing
AMP'd on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Muse Among MenSuburban Bunny Princess?Its time for a new shtick Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
I've never been a math or science person because I am terrible at both; but I always liked how there was a definite underlying truth.
While on the other hand, I BSed my way through much of English, despite generally liking the subject. It was usually a matter of sussing out what the teacher wanted to see, and otherwise making an argument for whatever your 'point' was regardless of whether or not you believed in it. Within a month or two teachers had usually given out a couple of every 'type' of assignment that would be expected, and students developed a formulaic system for fulfilling them. Some of these assignment 'types' endured from year to year, and we became very good at being minimally creative in completing them, which was magnified when we got to working on them in groups.
I don't know how beneficial or detrimental that latter point was. We completed our work much faster and got higher marks, but our work definitely became more homogeneous, despite active efforts to keep our writing from being so.
Doesn't that work out to mean that the teacher also doesn't know what the author means and is pulling shit out his/her ass too?
chances are the teacher is backing up their claim with evidence from the rest of the text
although a lot of people think introductory english lit is about telling people what books are about, really it's about demonstrating ways to think about sets of knowledge and to find certain patterns given source material
so when they're saying that blue curtains mean depression, they're also trying to get you to see that curtains cover a vantage point, that blue has connotations as a colour, and that often the best writing is the kind that you can't take at face value, because the enjoyment comes from thinking about aspects of the writing and coming to a realization about how they work within the broader story
Stuff like this just made me hate reading, just absolutely ruined books for me that I enjoyed before reading them for class. Every story doesn't need to be full of symbolism and allegory, sometimes a curtain is just a curtain.
This is probably why no one invites econ majors to parties.
Doesn't that work out to mean that the teacher also doesn't know what the author means and is pulling shit out his/her ass too?
chances are the teacher is backing up their claim with evidence from the rest of the text
although a lot of people think introductory english lit is about telling people what books are about, really it's about demonstrating ways to think about sets of knowledge and to find certain patterns given source material
so when they're saying that blue curtains mean depression, they're also trying to get you to see that curtains cover a vantage point, that blue has connotations as a colour, and that often the best writing is the kind that you can't take at face value, because the enjoyment comes from thinking about aspects of the writing and coming to a realization about how they work within the broader story
Stuff like this just made me hate reading, just absolutely ruined books for me that I enjoyed before reading them for class. Every story doesn't need to be full of symbolism and allegory, sometimes a curtain is just a curtain.
This is probably why no one invites econ majors to parties.
i had a long post that got ate by a busy server.
the short version:
how would it ruin books for you? it's still there. you're free to read it however you want, except in a literature class, in which case you're actually paying them to tell you how to read it.
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
So got an interesting demand from the production manager at the college radio station today. After my co-host & I did our two-hour show he told my co-host that we're going to need to make our two-hour show into a three hour-show. Now it is important to understand the history of my radio show.
Two years ago we were originally on in the evenings from 8 to 10 p.m. This was a terrific time slot and we were building a really great fan-base for our product. Well with the start of last year we were moved to 7 to 10 in the morning. So we did that for for a year and were pretty disgruntled with it because it was worse in almost every way but as a talk-show at a college radio station you are treated like a red-headed stepchild. Well jump ahead to the start of this year when we were told that our radio show had to be cut down an hour because nobody wanted to listen for that extra hour and could be better utilized.
So here we are, seven months later, going back to where we used to be. Except I'm not going to have that happen, I'm pretty much stonewalling the production manager on this and telling him to deal with his decision.
It's hard to go back to a book like that without just associating it with a class that I hated. I think it might be more having terrible teachers in high school than anything else.
I'm fairly lazy with my book interpretation. Read it, enjoy it, crap out a paper and, on occasion, have a decent teacher ream me for sloppy work until I secrete quality.
Doobh on
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
It's not about enjoying the work, it's about scouring it for theories and social commentary.
And, of course, the novels that are studied are entirely composed of theories and social commentary, so the narrative is painfully obtuse, and not very fun to read.
Then again, I might just be fed up of literary analysis after doing it for the last six years.
I've never been a math or science person because I am terrible at both; but I always liked how there was a definite underlying truth.
heh
that gets annoying after a while once you realise that yeah there is, but you can never actually know exactly what it is, just better and better approximations of it
the work can be enjoyable and still have social commentary and theorist-friendly material. look at house of leaves. or, if you want to get fancy, lolita.
It's not about enjoying the work, it's about scouring it for theories and social commentary.
And, of course, the novels that are studied are entirely composed of theories and social commentary, so the narrative is painfully obtuse.
Then again, I might just be fed up of literary analysis after doing it for the last six years.
I think this is really dumb, and I think that the fact that you see "enjoying a work" and analyzing it as mutually exclusive says more about your capability to be a good reader than it does anything else
also I'm interested to hear which books you thinks have "painfully obtuse" narratives
I've never been a math or science person because I am terrible at both; but I always liked how there was a definite underlying truth.
heh
that gets annoying after a while once you realise that yeah there is, but you can never actually know exactly what it is, just better and better approximations of it
markers don't give a shit
we're also not allowed to pass judgement on a work, otherwise you'd have marks being docked for no reason at all
I've never been a math or science person because I am terrible at both; but I always liked how there was a definite underlying truth.
heh
that gets annoying after a while once you realise that yeah there is, but you can never actually know exactly what it is, just better and better approximations of it
Ha, yeah I know. Just . . . the principle of it, you know?
Orik, I think you'd make for an interesting English teacher. Our small group of AP kids is just trudging through the course material with gritted teeth at this point. Many of us stopped reading for leisure as our English classes wore on.
Running joke:
Teacher: "So what is the book really about?"
Us: "Humanity"
Muse Among Men on
0
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
It's not about enjoying the work, it's about scouring it for theories and social commentary.
And, of course, the novels that are studied are entirely composed of theories and social commentary, so the narrative is painfully obtuse.
Then again, I might just be fed up of literary analysis after doing it for the last six years.
I think this is really dumb, and I think that the fact that you see "enjoying a work" and analyzing it as mutually exclusive says more about your capability to be a good reader than it does anything else
also I'm interested to hear which books you thinks have "painfully obtuse" narratives
I think it is mainly an aversion to that which reminds you of an unpleasant experience, in this case, the class. Had the class been pleasant, or a neutral experience, or had he engaged in that analyzing in a friendlier, more enjoyable context, he likely wouldn't feel the way he currently does.
Muse Among Men on
0
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
It's not about enjoying the work, it's about scouring it for theories and social commentary.
And, of course, the novels that are studied are entirely composed of theories and social commentary, so the narrative is painfully obtuse, and not very fun to read.
We are getting dangerously close to a "what is art" conversation, which, yikes
but I will say that something which possesses a form that is directly a function of its subject (and so as much a commentary on the mode of creation as on the diegetic aspects of the text) will always be more beautiful to me than something with a very compelling subject and a disconnected form.
Posts
we could hang ourselves!
chances are you don't understand the work in question
i just got done marking a bunch of stupid fucking exams, and most of them had the same tone as this post
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Fair enough.
Sometimes I am totally off base in judging a work.
Not thinking of my bad grades here. My bad ones are almost always earned. Thinking of good ones with glowing compliments where I knew I was randomly spouting bullshit.
And I may have implied that was a majority when it's more a minority. But I have ran into some arbitrary lit classes, and arbitrary portions of generally good classes. Of course, some to most of those could be entirely my faults in perception.
Why I fear the ocean.
the problem is with the 'what the author meant' phrase
you can never know what the author meant
ever
it's an incredibly basic fallacy
If you are in school, chances are you're a pretentious asshole
And as such cannot accept that perhaps somebody who has extensively studied a particular subject for the purposes of teaching it may have some insight into the symbols in a work that they themselves do not have
Also because there's no way to tell what the heck the author meant and it's entirely possible the curtains were just fucking blue
My Steam
there is no right or wrong answer in english, only answers that are well-argued and not
Yeah, my eyes completely glazed over that part. I've only had, like, in my whole life, maybe one teacher that was insistent about an author's meaning.
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
The parts that were played straight
Then the teacher told us that we were idiots if we didn't pick up on the sarcasm
And then a year later I read the essay in its entirety and noticed the final paragraphs, in which the sarcasm actually becomes clear
And everything fell into place
My Steam
chances are the teacher is backing up their claim with evidence from the rest of the text
although a lot of people think introductory english lit is about telling people what books are about, really it's about demonstrating ways to think about sets of knowledge and to find certain patterns given source material
so when they're saying that blue curtains mean depression, they're also trying to get you to see that curtains cover a vantage point, that blue has connotations as a colour, and that often the best writing is the kind that you can't take at face value, because the enjoyment comes from thinking about aspects of the writing and coming to a realization about how they work within the broader story
thanks for playing
While on the other hand, I BSed my way through much of English, despite generally liking the subject. It was usually a matter of sussing out what the teacher wanted to see, and otherwise making an argument for whatever your 'point' was regardless of whether or not you believed in it. Within a month or two teachers had usually given out a couple of every 'type' of assignment that would be expected, and students developed a formulaic system for fulfilling them. Some of these assignment 'types' endured from year to year, and we became very good at being minimally creative in completing them, which was magnified when we got to working on them in groups.
I don't know how beneficial or detrimental that latter point was. We completed our work much faster and got higher marks, but our work definitely became more homogeneous, despite active efforts to keep our writing from being so.
Stuff like this just made me hate reading, just absolutely ruined books for me that I enjoyed before reading them for class. Every story doesn't need to be full of symbolism and allegory, sometimes a curtain is just a curtain.
This is probably why no one invites econ majors to parties.
i had a long post that got ate by a busy server.
the short version:
how would it ruin books for you? it's still there. you're free to read it however you want, except in a literature class, in which case you're actually paying them to tell you how to read it.
Two years ago we were originally on in the evenings from 8 to 10 p.m. This was a terrific time slot and we were building a really great fan-base for our product. Well with the start of last year we were moved to 7 to 10 in the morning. So we did that for for a year and were pretty disgruntled with it because it was worse in almost every way but as a talk-show at a college radio station you are treated like a red-headed stepchild. Well jump ahead to the start of this year when we were told that our radio show had to be cut down an hour because nobody wanted to listen for that extra hour and could be better utilized.
So here we are, seven months later, going back to where we used to be. Except I'm not going to have that happen, I'm pretty much stonewalling the production manager on this and telling him to deal with his decision.
Let us see how this unfolds...
But when I read a book for my own enjoyment I just take things at face value.
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
K thx
PS: whatever happened to you and K-bomb coming down to visit?
Blue curtains represent a terran player losing a game of SC2.
Which is like a privileged kid losing at something for the first time in his life.
It's not about enjoying the work, it's about scouring it for theories and social commentary.
And, of course, the novels that are studied are entirely composed of theories and social commentary, so the narrative is painfully obtuse, and not very fun to read.
Then again, I might just be fed up of literary analysis after doing it for the last six years.
I got top marks on one of my essays for writing what I now realise was a preeeeeeetty misogynistic rant against celebrity culture in that same exam
I wouldn't really call the markers the best judges of
well, anything
heh
that gets annoying after a while once you realise that yeah there is, but you can never actually know exactly what it is, just better and better approximations of it
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
I think this is really dumb, and I think that the fact that you see "enjoying a work" and analyzing it as mutually exclusive says more about your capability to be a good reader than it does anything else
also I'm interested to hear which books you thinks have "painfully obtuse" narratives
markers don't give a shit
we're also not allowed to pass judgement on a work, otherwise you'd have marks being docked for no reason at all
if it was well argued, it did well
Ha, jokes on you! I'm an economist.
Wait...fuck!
I can appreciate more
I can analyze
But I like stories
This is my view on everything from literature to film to any form of entertainment
Ha, yeah I know. Just . . . the principle of it, you know?
Orik, I think you'd make for an interesting English teacher. Our small group of AP kids is just trudging through the course material with gritted teeth at this point. Many of us stopped reading for leisure as our English classes wore on.
Running joke:
Teacher: "So what is the book really about?"
Us: "Humanity"
tlb
you and me
it is such a simple thing
I ain't get why one thing has to be better or deeper than another to be okay to like
Like, you can put, say The 400 Blows and Commando next to me
And try to tell me why one is great and the other is shit
And I won't get it
They both have neat stories!
I think it is mainly an aversion to that which reminds you of an unpleasant experience, in this case, the class. Had the class been pleasant, or a neutral experience, or had he engaged in that analyzing in a friendlier, more enjoyable context, he likely wouldn't feel the way he currently does.
Like a poet.
That's a pretty big absolute there. Which novels?
but I will say that something which possesses a form that is directly a function of its subject (and so as much a commentary on the mode of creation as on the diegetic aspects of the text) will always be more beautiful to me than something with a very compelling subject and a disconnected form.