Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Cecelia Ahern - hack, PS, I hate you, you suck
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I am serious and I think threads like this are very useful because they discuss how we look at things.For the literati Wuthering Heights is a classic and art. Yet the "Borstal Boy" is a lesson in a simple style as is PS I love you.
Who are these mysterious literati you speak of?
Yes, for many people 'Wuthering Heights' is a classic and art, not just for those snobs in their ivory tower who are forcing their love of literature of the 'ordinary Joe'. :rolleyes:
People who become English teachers do so because they are fans and cant see why others cant share their enthusiasm for language and hate these books they love.Convincing themselves and others that the rest of us are thickos and philistines.
Why do you assume why people become English teachers? You don't know their reasons. You seem to have this idea that anybody who has passion for 'serious' literature is a snob who labels others as 'thickos'. It is simply not the case, for the most part, I would say. Perhaps you would like to believe this because it fits your view of boring and difficult literature being 'forced on the little guy'?
To be honest, I find your position a bit ridiculous. Surely if English teachers love literature, they will pass on their enthusiasm to show that these works can be universally- enjoyed, not just by intellectuals but by 'the ordinary Joe'. It is not about being snobby and being above everyone else- quite the opposite, I would say.
Not everyone is inspired by the same stuff - beacause Wuthering Heights is dark and dreary I dont like it. Its nothing to do with the descriptive narrative style -its a headwrecking story and mush.
Very much like Dirty Den in Eastenders Heathcliff shows up without explanation...................to seek revenge and wreak havoc............................
Of course not everyone is inspired by the same stuff- but if you don't give them a shot at difficult literature, how will they ever know if they like it or not? I think saying that " the man on the street will never grasp high literature anyway so don't bother putting it on the course" is actually far more insulting than asking that the 'average joe' try something more difficult than what they're used to.
Also, I thought you had a problem with the Brontes' work because of the 'over descriptive narrative', now you're saying it has 'nothing to do with why you don't like it'. I'm sorry but saying ''it's a headwrecking story and mush'' is not very convincing if you're trying to make a case against it being one of the best novels in the English literature.I have a choice -lots of people dont - but the system should facilitate and give the ordinary guy the skills to read and enjoy what he wants if only for entertainment.
As donegalfella points out, basic literacy skills are already developed at primary school level. Should the 'ordinary guy' never be able to go beyond that?
Maybe I cant understand one end of a car engine from another or Know my ELCBs from my trip switches but the guys who do those jobs need functional literacy.
And they should have functional literacy from primary school- what's your point?
Also, why can't a car mechanic enjoy 'Wuthering Heights'? Is he too much of an 'ordinary joe' for all that high-falutin' rubbish? :rolleyes:
IF I find the content of a book on a bit of the flaky side or depressing - I wont fake liking it for kudos.
You don't have to 'fake liking it'.
You're demonstrating here why precisely you don't grasp what teaching literature and literary criticism is about.
It's not about fawning over the classics and looking down on people who don't share your taste- it's about the developing the critical skills to explain why or why not you don't like it in a more concise way than ''it's a head wrecking story''.a bit off topic -I think English Lit should be a different subject from English optional for poets and dreamers.
I would add PS I love you to it as a reality check.
But where do the literati get the right to restrict literacy or indeed choose to impose their taste on the rest of us? Could it be that the Brontes would go unread?
Why do you insist on labeling people as 'poets and dreamers' and 'the literati'?
Isn't it possible that everyone should get to enjoy great literature and not be pandered to with airport novels?
For example, I come from a very working-class family. I'm the first one to go to university. Fifty years ago , as a working class girl,I would probably never have gotten the chance to go to college and study great literature precisely because of this kind of thinking i.e. that I'm an ordinary Joe and I wouldn't get it anyway. I know this was the case with my older relatives.
And whatever you have against the Brontes, I think it's fairly laughable to suggest that they would go unread just because they're not taught in schools.
To be honest, I'm wondering if I'm wasting my time writing this as you haven't responded to my other posts. Oh well, I feel very passionately about this subject, and if it was ever decided to remove great literature from schools just because the 'ordinary guy' can't handle it, I think it would be a very sad day.0 -
-
I lifted the label thickos from another literati. Donegalfella is the arch literati- and he has admitted to liking Yeats too.
So what if he likes Yeats? How does this make him the 'arch-literati'? Tbh, I would be pretty annoyed at being labeled that way were I donegalfella.
You're just labeling people as this and that, not arguing your point sufficiently, in my opinion.
You're missing my basic point- it's not about being a literati or a 'thicko'- everybody should get the chance to at least try literature. And they won't get the chance if they have to deal with 'P.S. I Love You' instead of Shakespeare.
But there is more to English then literature and I have no doubt that people enjoy the Brontes Wuthering Heights at that level.Fraustrated female living on the moor seeks psycho -it might say on Match.com
Fair enough if that's all you got out of 'Wuthering Heights'. But just because others can see beyond a potential advert on match.com it doesn't make them snobs, or literary bores.
But the teaching of English is not just literature and thats my point -its functional literacy as well. Why shouldnt a lad not be able to read a football programme or the horescopes. English teachers do have a responsibility - and thats reading and writing.So what happens those who havent those skills after primary. If they are not up to standard send them back.
I'm not entirely sure you're familiar with the teaching of English at secondary level. That's not meant to sound condescending but it seems you don't know exactly what's on the course. For the Leaving and Junior Cert exams,Paper 1 is generally involved with functional writing (letters, newspapers, reviews, etc). Paper 2 is involved with poetry, literature, drama and all the rest. So, I believe both literature and functional writing is covered- so what's the problem?
Secondly, the lad in question can read about football or horoscopes at home. He doesn't need to come to a secondary school English lesson to learn how to do that.
In the case that people don't have reading and writing skills after primary school, I believe it is the fault of the primary school teacher. Taking Shakespeare off the Leaving Cert syllabus won't do a thing for kids who can't read and write after 8 years in school.
Im not saying a guy cant like these works. Im just saying I dont.I could never be enthused by it. Part of that is the drab storylines. I also cant get enthused by poets descibing flights of herons or woods in snow. But a dirty old greyhound dog winning a race might do it.
Im not saying the ordinary guy cant handle it or tackle it. Im just saying he may not want to and may prefer the car manual or a book about a greyhound or a footballer.
I have no problem with you liking those books as they are to your taste and as challenging and beautifully written as they are -to me they are headwrecking mush.
Its great that you like the stuff and have read all this great literature -and if its any concilation I dont like Eastenders either.I just cant get enthused.
That's fair enough if you don't like cerrtain writers, but you seem to basically arguing ''I don't like the Brontes / Dickens/ Shakespeare and I think Cecelia Aherne is better, therefore I think Aherne should be taught in schools instead''. This is not the basis for selecting texts for students to study nor should it be. It should not be about patronizing or pandering to students. It should be about challenging them and using more difficult literature to develop critical skills.0 -
Advertisement
-
So what if he likes Yeats? How does this make him the 'arch-literati'? Tbh, I would be pretty annoyed at being labeled that way were I donegalfella.
I'm not entirely sure you're familiar with the teaching of English at secondary level. That's not meant to sound condescending but it seems you don't know exactly what's on the course. For the Leaving and Junior Cert exams,Paper 1 is generally involved with functional writing (letters, newspapers, reviews, etc). Paper 2 is involved with poetry, literature, drama and all the rest. So, I believe both literature and functional writing is covered- so what's the problem?
In the case that people don't have reading and writing skills after primary school, I believe it is the fault of the primary school teacher.
That's fair enough if you don't like cerrtain writers, but you seem to basically arguing ''I don't like the Brontes / Dickens/ Shakespeare and I think Cecelia Aherne is better, therefore I think Aherne should be taught in schools instead''.
You dont understand but he likes Joyce too.
But the Brontes and Shakespeare are period pieces and I cant see why they are studied TBH.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
DublinWriter wrote: »Oh, come on!
I will arise now, and go to Innis Free,
And in a small cabin there, listen to a Marilyn Manson CD.
Keats not Yeats.
Surely Emily Dickinson is the Emo Poet. I always liked Emily Dickinson. She was real.
I feel a Funeral in my brain. 0 -
-
-
-
But the reality is you are not teaching higher thought to these kids as they are not mature enough for it. If you were you would teach that Yeats was horny for Maud Gonne and got blown out. Really -the stuff taught in schools is far too heavy.Its "emo" as in emotional shoegazing stuff - a teenager might describe Keats as an "emo" poet.
How do you know that teenagers aren't mature enough for it? That is possibly the worst reason for taking literature off the course- based purely on the assumption that kids can't handle the themes in it. Don't underestimate teenagers. I feel you are grasping at straws here , really.
I was told that Yeats ''was horny for Maud Gonne'' in class- it influenced many of his poems. What is your point?
Your point about Keats is rubbish frankly- so what if he could be described as 'emo'? So what? Can poems only be about shiny-happy-people?
The Sun story is a very good example - it is very concise and each sentence works - the most important at the start and bangs out key points in descending order of importance.Importantly it conveys a story of an individual loosing his temper and acting inappropriately.
I already explained this. Students do study newspaper writing- both tabloid and broadsheet. Particularly with 'The Sun' and its ilk, attention is drawn to the exaggeration and sensationalism of the writing.
'King Lear' also deals with an individual losing his temper and acting inappropriately.
But I thought students would be too emotionally immature for this kind of stuff?
Apologies for the triple post.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement