If you could design the English Curriculum..

I maintain my first post in this thread.

I'm sorry, Deboss, did a bookshelf fall on your head when you were a child?

For the record I love reading, I just hate the crap that I keep getting recommended from english teachers. I actually use it as a good guide for books to avoid now.

But why does a book have to be bad if it's required? By that logic, I should never read Douglas Adams (if I were ever in your class) because I had to be required to read it.

I think the classics are mostly like vegetables - try them, and you'll like them, even if they're hard to adjust to at first.

-goes to nom on some carrots and broccoli-

ETA: And even if you don't end up liking them, you still benefit from them by the ideas and history and style that you learn, because of the innate good qualities in them.

edited 24th Jan '11 7:14:10 AM by Maridee

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, maybe Watchmen, some of Neil Gaiman's stuff certainly, but I'm not sure on what, specifically.

Some Thursday Next might be useful, actually, because it discusses literary concepts and the craft of writing in a light way, making it less dense, more accessible.

There'd be other stuff too, of course, but the academic snoots can go nuts with it. As long as my little list were included, I'd be fine.

More classics because I am a boring twat who likes them more than anything.

I'll say!

But which classics?

Certainly more epics. Like Orlando Furioso. I never read The Brothers Karamazov in class but I don't know if it's not part of curriculum or if it's just because my English teachers didn't care for the Russian classics and more or less avoided anything to do with them. We skipped over any of the short stories because of that.

I'd make short stories a bigger part of the curriculum for sure.

They seem to be a big enough one. They just get largely ignored in classes.

If I have to adjust to a writing style to find it entertaining, it's a bad style. It's also hard to benefit from something I only read enough of to pass a test and then intentionally forget everything about it as fast as possible. All literature courses should be optional overall. There's nothing of worth in those types of classes anyway.

Deboss, why do you even continue to post here if you clearly despise the subject, and have had your say already?

Ah, regarding Classical versus other world mythologies: I must admit to being biased. I myself had a great literature education, and honestly I wouldn't amend it that much, were I designing a curriculum for English classes (although I probably wouldn't do Flowers For Algernon for seventh-graders.) I am also biased in regards to having had a very Anglophone, and Western-centric, education. World mythology would be a good idea, but I would want to integrate it with corresponding traditions - Japanese writing with Japanese mythology, etc. But that's also why Classical is so useful - you find it everywhere in Western literature. Until you get to really modern stuff, world mythology isn't that useful.

For the Lulz.

That's trolling and banworthy.

Deboss, you're an imbecile. Good day to you, sir.

It's not trolling if I'm answering the question in the OP. I'm posting multiple times because other people's posts reminds me of things, it's not my fault that myself and other tropers violently disagree on what should be done with english classes.

What you posted previously conflicts with that answer.

How about the Lambs' version of Shakespeare for middleschoolers? It's much more readable, and gives a good idea of where the plot is going before you get into the nitty-gritty of the text.

I don't get what's so bad about a "no literature" requirement. Once someone speaks, reads, and writes the english language, a reading class should try to get them into books by exposing them to varied genres so they're expand their vocabularies on their own. If a student doesn't find anything interesting, which is entirely possible, another class will not likely change it and is a waste of time. Much better to make all literature classes strictly optional.

I don't get what's so bad about a "no math" requirement. Once someone adds, subtracts, and can multiply and divide with basic numbers, a math class should try to get them into concepts by exposing them to varied feilds so they expand their abilities on their own. If a student doesn't find anything interesting, which is entirely possible, another class will not likely change it and is a waste of time. Much better to make all math classes strictly optional.

Because literature isn't just about learning language - it's about understanding the language. If you just take a class and learn a language, that's not half as good as going to a city where that language is spoken and living with the people who speak it.

A literature class shouldn't be just about exposing people to new reading material, and it shouldn't be just a book club. It's about understanding culture and ideas and history, not just the pleasure you happen to get from the book - although a good book should also give that, once you learn how to enjoy it.

I STILL maintain my first post in this thread.

"Shakespeare was the most unpleasant work I've ever been exposed to."

What the fuck does that even mean? Shakespeare is an author of close to two hundred works. Being exposed to, apparently, only one of these makes you less than qualified to dismiss him as a source of learning.

That being said, I'd ban Go Ask Alice, The Giver, and similar wompy angsty stories with deep pretensions.

"Also, no state funded field trips to go see plays. They're a form of art that will hopefully die soon anyway." =( unlikely, but I have to wonder what kind of life you've led and what kind of person you are for you to say such a thing.

Alrite, that came across as a bit harsh =P... still, plays like The Foreigner, or A Rasin in the Sun...they're good, you know? There's something cool about plays, and it's hard to beleive you've actually seen any and still want the entire deal to end forever.

Whoever said that plays should die needs to die.