Psycho Goose wrote:Goddamn it, some teachers just piss me off. Punishing you for being a good reader--what the hell. Am I the only one who had this reaction?Nullifidian wrote:He was one of the writers I read, along with Jules Verne, Daniel Defoe, Robert Louis Stevenson, Joseph Conrad, Rudyard Kipling, Edgar Allen Poe, Jack London, Arthur Conan Doyle, etc. Nobody told me I shouldn't be reading these authors until I got to second grade and had a teacher so freaked out by my reading works that were not "age-appropriate" that she even ripped White Fang straight out of my hands.
plsander wrote:Atomic Toast wrote:Honestly, The Illiad.
From an objective point of view, I can say it is very good, but it's just not an engaging read for me.
In my experience the quality of the translation matters greatly in the enjoyment of Homer's work.
Anachrome wrote:Also, I think Romeo and Juliet becomes better if you treat it as a satire of teenagers romanticizing romance instead of a serious tragedy. (Which unfortunately is not mentioned in many English classes).
I find that Faulkner is a lot easier to understand if you read him out loud, or at least read each word in your head as though it were being spoken. As opposed to reading quickly and silently, where you don't really read one word at a time and so rely a lot more on punctuation and structure.Tigerrrrr wrote:I do remember hating picking through the "sentences" in "The Bear" just trying to connect the clauses and figure out what was going on. Faulkner, get some punctuation so we can figure out what the crap you're even saying.
Ugh. Unless the class size was something like 10, I can barely even imagine a teacher willing to read any amount of whatever was turned in.TheAmazingRando wrote:not because it was a bad book but because we had to journal while we read it, ask a certain number of questions during every chapter about what would happen next, summarize every chapter, and write profiles on every character.
I'm pretty sure she just graded by page length, I got an 8/10 for mine and I probably skipped a quarter of the book. This same teacher would also tell us we were wrong if we had interpretations that weren't in the teacher's guide, and refused to discuss them. I don't think she even read the books she taught.Jorpho wrote:Ugh. Unless the class size was something like 10, I can barely even imagine a teacher willing to read any amount of whatever was turned in.
miedvied wrote:Seriously, I feel like I went through a thread where people sat through a Film Art course and then bitched that it's not fun when characters don't run away from exploding buildings.
miedvied wrote:The books assigned are those that the entire multigenerational community of lit geeks have found to be readily accessible and full of ideas ready for analysis.
You appear to be contradicting yourself.The purpose of the smattering of books in the average HS curriculum is to give students a vague idea of what life was actually like during important parts of History.
Zarq wrote:miedvied wrote:Seriously, I feel like I went through a thread where people sat through a Film Art course and then bitched that it's not fun when characters don't run away from exploding buildings.
With that difference that Film Art courses are mostly not compulsory and people go to those because they are interested in it.
Jorpho wrote:miedvied wrote:The books assigned are those that the entire multigenerational community of lit geeks have found to be readily accessible and full of ideas ready for analysis.You appear to be contradicting yourself.The purpose of the smattering of books in the average HS curriculum is to give students a vague idea of what life was actually like during important parts of History.
podbaydoor wrote:It's possible to appreciate the context, influence, and impact of a book and still feel like you're pulling teeth to make it through every paragraph while you're reading it.
The thread is titled "Books you had to read for school that you could not stand", not "Present these books in an academic treatment and provide citations for it." The thread is about personal feelings and reactions, it's right there in the title.
miedvied wrote:Only in Lit do we discuss our "personal feelings" about the material, despite our feelings being as irrelevant to a properly designed Lit class as they are to a proper math class.
The public at large would generally have no incentive to look at a horrendous math book, or any math book used in a general high school course. Nor is the "entire multigenerational community of [math or chemistry] geeks" particularly focused on any particular decades-old math or chemistry book. (Maybe the Feynman lectures on Physics?)miedvied wrote:It only strikes me now that math books and chem books are just as much books as anything else, and fall under the topic of the thread, but even so: it didn't cross anyone's mind to criticize a horrendous math book.
miedvied wrote:Your participation in all aspects of school pre-uni are compulsory
Belial wrote:The sex card is tournament legal. And I am tapping it for, like, six mana.
Seconded! I didn't have to read it in school though - someone gave it to me as a gift I think.Sonata wrote:I had to read The Chocolate War. It was horrible.
Heh. I somehow ended up with Corimer's "Fade" as a prize, and it was quite possibly the most violent and most lewd book I had ever come across at the time.Kisama wrote:Seconded! I didn't have to read it in school though - someone gave it to me as a gift I think.Sonata wrote:I had to read The Chocolate War. It was horrible.
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark
DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.
Geoffrey Trease, perhaps? He was pretty good, as I recall.cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:I remember reading some books I hated back in 5th grade that (presumably) vaguely-related to the history curriculum. I don't really remember any titles.
serutan wrote:The Shakespeare I found pretty meh - but I agree with the person who said that those plays were not meant to be read.
serutan wrote:Along those lines, on a C-SPAN program a few years ago David McCullogh said that in his opinion it was not fair to assign 18th and early 19th century novels to high schoolers, as they were written for adults, and could not be properly appreciated by teenagers.
PatrickRsGhost wrote:I think the problem in general when it comes to assigning books or other forms of literature to read is that students find they can't relate to it. This is a story about two families at war with each other? And the kids are having a relationship? I can't think of anyone like that in my life! But when the student realizes that "Romeo and Juliet" was the inspiration for "West Side Story" and "The Lion King II: Simba's Pride", then they'd probably become more interested in it.
How is anyone supposed to learn anything from that? It sounds more like indoctrination.freezeblade wrote:And read it we did, in less than a week, in class, for about 3 hours a day (not out loud), plus whatever it took to finish it at home. After a few class periods of this was quite over it.
Jorpho wrote:How is anyone supposed to learn anything from that? It sounds more like indoctrination.
Also, doesn't eating that much paper cause major indigestion?
Um, this post feels devoid of content. Good luck?
For comparison, that means that if the cabbage guy from Avatar: The Last Airbender filled up his cart with lettuce instead, it would be about a quarter of a lethal dose.
Users browsing this forum: word24lzkcd and 2 guests