But then in 7th grade, you combined with a monster.
READING CLASS.
Reading class certainly had its benefits back then. Back before the two of you combined, that is. We read cutesy little stories about cutesy little animals, or cutesy little kids going on cutesy little adventures.
However, it was when the teachers quizzed us on stupid things like "What was Barry the Bear's eye color?" that I hated Reading class. To be honest, what significance does Barry the Bear's eye color have to do with the rest of the story?
When these two classes combined, English became hell. The stories we read weren't so cutesy anymore. In fact, they became more and more depressing as the years went on. Then, in 7th, we were introduced to something new. Not every type of writing would be obviously classified into one of the main three groups-informative, persuasive, and one other which I can't remember what it was called, but it was creative writing, basically.
Let me share something with you faithful (or not as much so) readers of The Mag Lev Trains.
I LOVED creative writing as a young child. I used to write up accounts of my day. Around 7th grade, I was typing them in emails and sending them out. I would comment sarcastically to lists I would recieve in chain emails, or just find online. This continued into 8th and the beginning of 9th grade...there's an obvious trend between when I got gmail and when I stopped writing out these detailed reports of my day.
But I digress. Back to 7th grade English. We were told that we would now be writing essays, which we had been exposed to before. However, now, these essays would be not on something we cared about, such as getting a new bike or, as an essay I wrote back in 6th grade, the importance of a pencil (I'm not kidding. It was a fairly good essay, too!), but rather, on a book we read in class.
I wish I wasn't kidding. But as you all know, I'm dead serious.
To be honest, writing about the importance of a pencil is a lot more helpful to real life than writing about how certain events in certain books connect. If you're going to go into marketing, you have to show why people need your product, as I showed back in 6th grade why you need a pencil. But showing why those books connect-especially if they connect in depressing ways, as many books we read in English class do-are not going to help sell those novels.
I think Paul Graham, creator of the Don't be Creepy Powerpoint, and my new hero, put it the best:
I think what he's saying is fairly self-explanatory. Perfect example: Nectar in a Sieve. What happens in this novel, which any student that took Honors World Lit hopefully remembers? (To any freshmen/not yet freshmen that have yet to read it, SPOILER ALERT) Basically, Ruku, who comes from a fairly well off family, marries Nathan, who isn't as lucky. They have a ton of kids and most of them die. One becomes a prostitute and has an albino baby. One leaves to get a job or something? I forget the reason, but he leaves, so Ruku and Nathan go off to search for them. They take in a boy with an odd disease, and then Nathan dies.When I was in high school I spent a lot of time imitating bad writers. What
we studied in English classes was mostly fiction, so I assumed that was the
highest form of writing. Mistake number one. The stories that seemed to be most
admired were ones in which people suffered in complicated ways. Anything funny
or gripping was ipso facto suspect, unless it was old enough to be hard to
understand, like Shakespeare or Chaucer. Mistake number two. The ideal medium
seemed the short story, which I've since learned had quite a brief life, roughly
coincident with the peak of magazine publishing. But since their size made them
perfect for use in high school classes, we read a lot of them, which gave us the
impression the short story was flourishing. Mistake number three. And because
they were so short, nothing really had to happen; you could just show a randomly
truncated slice of life, and that was considered advanced. Mistake number four.
The result was that I wrote a lot of stories in which nothing happened except
that someone was unhappy in a way that seemed deep.
Now, why the hell would you want to write an essay on that? And as exciting as that seems *coughs sarcastically * copying that writer whose name I can't remember's style of KILLING OFF ALMOST EVERY CHARACTER IN THE NOVEL is totally something worth copying.
On top of all the crap essays that we write, we have to ANALYZE these novels. Meaning, we have to find symbols and foreshadowing and read into the novel, as opposed to just reading it.
There is a point where you have to ask yourself, Did the author intend that, or is my teacher making it up? I mean, some things are obviously intentional. Others, you just think to yourself, this is ridiculous.
And then...theme. Oh geeze. Theme is okay, and sometimes very easy to pick out. For example, Slaughterhouse-five. "Life is fatalistic." "War is bad."
REALLY, REALLY OBVIOUS.
However, take another random novel. Say, Gossip Girl. What the hell is the theme of Gossip Girl? Don't be supreme I-Want-It-All bitch? Being rich is the best way to get by?
Okay, so although it's beyond shit, Gossip Girl is a habit I just can't quit.
I'm a poet and I didn't even know it.
As a closing note, if you want more Paul Graham, http://paulgraham.com/articles.html for his essays, which are absolutely amazing, and http://dontbecreepy.com/talks, scroll down to the box labeled October 30th, and click on the link that says Powerpoint...it's the DON'T BE CREEPY POWERPOINT.
37 comments:
Sometimes some things that english teachers say seem suspect, but we read those books in english class because most people agree there is a deeper significance or purpose, or something we can learn about, such as Indian culture. Thats the reason we don't read books like Gossip Girl. Not all literature is as obviously written just to be read.
First off, I am an English nut, so I take this as a personal affront to my way of life. :-P
But in all seriousness, if you do read into the books like the teachers tell you to, and you do find that stuff on your own, it does feel good. It's not always entirely depressing, even if the entire text of the book is.
If you want something that's immediately gratifying (and usually pretty happy... at least by the end), read sci-fi/fantasy novels.
Pickers can't be choosers.
To Glen: Note that my current author of choice is Kurt Vonnegut. His novels are depressing, but also completely hilarious. AND on top of that, they have things that English teachers like. A little something for everyone, yes?
All right. I've only read a bit so far and I'll read the comments after I'm finished, but I just wanted to mention something before I forget.
"However, now, these essays would be not on something we cared about, such as getting a new bike or, as an essay I wrote back in 6th grade, the importance of a pencil (I'm not kidding. It was a fairly good essay, too!), but rather, on a book we read in class."
My sister JUST wrote that essay about pencils for National Pencil Month (which is this month! Yay!) LAST WEEK. And then Messo mentions it in her blog post. *monicars *
Now I will finish the rest. :)
Fine, Messo! It was a different essay, and a different grade. It's still kind of a coincidence!
More coincidences. We JUST started Nectar in a Sieve, and it's not that bad. Certainly better than Midaq Alley. And Messo mentions it in her blog post.
Still not finished. (Now I will actually read what she wrote about Nectar in a Sieve. :))
I preferred Midaq Alley to Nectar in a Sieve. Big time.
Finally done.
Nectar in a Sieve is not that bad so far. Of course, I'm only half done, and haven't gotten to most of the parts mentioned (only a couple people have died so far), but that's ok. It's a fairly long book compared to its size. I don't know why it's taking me so long to read. Maybe I get distracted.
Gossip Girl is stupid. FIGHT THE ADDICTION, MESSO! LIKE YOUR ADDICTION TO CHOCOLATE! (but chocolate is good, so don't give that up.)
Paul Graham is wonderful. I recall somewhere in his essays (I read them in the fall when messo first found them) there was a paragraph or two about les mis and how nobody, including the teacher, read it.
Jesse - Good point, but sometimes you have to wonder why we read books like Midaq Alley, which is interesting to a point but pointless after that. Also, why do 7th graders read The Giver, Animal Farm, or Gideon's People? They are definitely not mature enough. (I kind of wish we were reading them now because we'd definitely get more out of them.)
Glen - Another good point, but it's just so annoying when teachers make you do it and then make you write stupid essays about it. It's one of those things you have to learn to do yourself. (Although sometimes I think I tried too hard in English class because now I end up analyzing just about everything that happens, which is why I get so distracted.) In a way, it's not an English class, but rather one about life in general.
Midaq Alley was ok, but extremely fragmented and if there was one semi-normal character that wasn't ridiculous/stupid in some way or other, maybe I would have enjoyed it more. (But maybe that was the point.) Plus there were so many pointless questions to answer, and there was really no plot at all.
I understood all the satire, but I think Mahfouz could have put some other elements in. It was just too critical and sarcastic.
And then there was that whole incident with the word voluptuous in math class. *monicars some more *
I happen t love satire. That's why I love Kurt Vonnegut. Sarcasm totally gets me. Sarcasm is sexy.
Maybe that's why, with the exception of Purple Hibiscus, Midaq Alley was my favorite book we read all last year.
Or maybe it was because everything else just flat out sucked.
MESSO AND I FOUND/REFOUND IT!
"In my high school French class we were supposed to read Hugo's Les Miserables. I don't think any of us knew French well enough to make our way through this enormous book. Like the rest of the class, I just skimmed the Cliff's Notes. When we were given a test on the book, I noticed that the questions sounded odd. They were full of long words that our teacher wouldn't have used. Where had these questions come from? From the Cliff's Notes, it turned out. The teacher was using them too. We were all just pretending."
http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html
*is in love with Paul Graham*
Secretly, I hope he finds this blog and comes and hunts me down.
I guess that's not a secret anymore.
Then again, that would be creepy. And he WROTE don't be creepy. So I should therefore not be creepy.
DON'T BE CREEPY, MESSO!
Don't forget about Monday. Maybe we should drag Gianni in so he can help us show it to Mull. WE COULD EVEN PRESENT IT! LIKE A REAL POWERPOINT!
I don't think our math class needs to learn how not to be creepy. But that would be insanely fun. Maybe on the last day of school we'll present it like a real presentation.
It's a shame there's no one in our class named Bob or Alice. Or maybe, WE could be Bob and Alice! I call being Bob, the creepy one!
Monica, I don't think you need to try. Remember when you stalked Micky...?
Oh, and by the way, if you're not Monica, I remind you to comment on the actual post and ignore our conversation.
And if you want I guess comment on the conversation too.
I can still remember her schedule! Except homeroom and I'm not sure of some of the teachers. I suppose I'll have to restalk her for that. Of course, I could ask. That would be the uncreepy way, but the creepy one is much more fun.
This is 13, messo.
Monica-14 coming right up.
You should take AP Lang Junior year. Apparently there's an essay where you have to stalk people. It's an English class (WHICH LOOPS BACK TO WHAT THE POST WAS ABOUT ORIGINALLY).
1. Midaq Alley was a terrible and disgusting book and Nectar in a Sieve was much better.
2. Gossip Girl is indeed stupid!
3. They don't make us analyze/write essays about books randomly. They do it because it's in the SATs and other standardized tests, and also because analyzing literature, believe it or not, is actually a somewhat important thing that you have to be able to do, even if you're not an English major when you go to college. I don't mind English class too much.
1. What was the point of Nectar in a Sieve? To show us that everyone was less fortunate? I know that people are less fortunate, and, yes, I care, but you don't need to put us through a whole depressing book to show us. WE GET IT. And if you're going to put us through a depressing book, make sure it has SOME humor in it, like Midaq Alley.
2. I agree. I haven't read any of them since the summer and am easily quitting that habit.
3. I am a mathy person. I am going to grow up and do something that focuses on math...I actually enjoy accounting a lot and am considering that right now (and I get family help...from my grandpa :) ). When the hell am I going to need to analyze literature if I'm an accountant? Or anything else mathy, for that matter? You do bring up a point, Ello about the SAT's, but even the PSAT's, the analyzing literature didn't ask about symbolism or any of that crap, and the analytical questions were not that difficult. And to be honest with you, the PSAT's were nice, and I dunno about the SAT's but I assume they will be similar...anyways, the PSAT's allowed us a copy of the short work or poem on them, there was no quote ID or any of that crap, which I also find pointless. I don't have a problem with writing essays, it's writing essays about some book I've possibly never heard of before and will probably never read again that bugs me, with a few obvious exceptions.
It's "anyway" not "anyways"...
And the quote analysis is something I disagree with the teachers on myself. Yes, the quotes that they pick really "characterize the character" or something :-P, but no, they aren't necessary. I humbly think that quote analysis would be a better choice.
Oh, and although you may want to be an accountant, there are several reasons why you should learn it anyway. 1) This is grade school: everyone has to dabble in everything to get an idea of what they really want to do. 2) You might want to be an accountant now, but that is, sometimes, subject to change. For some unknown reason, you might just decide that you want to be an English major in the middle of college. What would you do then? 3) You're not just learning about symbolism and other things, you're also learning about English... Sometimes, authors can put stuff in their novels that is really interesting, such as an idea that you've never thought of before or a phrase that you might think is really cool. Who knows?
Oh, and Monica, there is no such thing as a coincidence. It's just a word that someone made up to put an idea in people's minds that such things are usually the product of luck and not someone's invisible force toward the matter at hand. :-P (For the record, yes, I am a skeptic.)
Also, Monica, by the same token that you have to learn to write essays yourself, you also have to learn improvisation yourself. But. But, but, but... It's a ton easier if you have the right tools and have some place to start from. In improv, you need to have some knowledge of the scales that it tells you to play in, or you have to have perfect pitch and a mind that works faster than anyone's I know. The same with writing essays. The most basic things I can point out is that you couldn't write an essay unless 1) You could read 2) You could write 3) You've already read the book and 4) You can figure out what you're trying to accomplish by writing the essay, none of which you can honestly do without a teacher of some sort. And there are a lot more subtle things that go into writing an essay, which, again, you learn from a teacher unless you've got a knack... possibly the knack.
(For those of you who don't know Dilbert, watch: http://www.flixxy.com/dilbert-the-knack.htm )
Yeah... I'm done for now.
Seriously, thank you Glen, I totally agree.
Teachers make us write essays not so that we can know how to analyze literature, although thats a benefit. They make us do it to practice formal writing skills, reading comprehension, and as a way for us to prove to them we've been generally paying attention in class. I don't think there's anything wrong with them wanting us to prove that, or them having us do so through essays.
Couldn't they just have a formal test on the novel and have us write essays on other things that are more important/relevant to our daily lives? Or split Reading and English into two separate things again? I can write okay, but apparently I have a problem with reading. Actually, it's less a problem with the actual reading as it is a problem with the reading into. Another thing that REALLY gets on my nerves-why are we required to take four whole years of English, but only 3 of math (and, okay, most people do get the four in anyway)? For those of us that prefer math and HATE English, like me, doesn't that seem a little...subject-ist?
Also, at this point, having been through 9, 10, 11 years of school (obviously depending on what grade we're in), I would think that we've all had enough experience to figure out what our likes are and what we think is pure bullshit. I like math and hate English, so I'm going to want to take math through high school. Unfortunately, I can't just choose to drop English after junior year (or after sophomore year, as I can with math, since accounting technically can be counted as a math course, and therefore I have my 3 credits in, unless I fail, but considering my 1st and 2nd MP grades in those classes, it won't happen).
I really don't understand why they can't offer a purely reading or purely writing course, as well as the ones that combine them.
Okay, here's where I stand. Freshman year, yes, you should take all the core classes-English, math, social studies, language, and science. Sophomore year, same deal. Junior/Senior year, you should be offered the choice of a reading-intensive course, a writing-intensive course, and one that concentrates on both equally. Yes, I realize that those options are in fact offered, but no course is COMPLETELY reading or COMPLETELY writing, as I believe it should be.
I think what is being misinterpreted here is that I have nothing wrong at all with essay writing, and that this is what Glen and Jesse have been attacking in their two comments. In fact, I don't mind essays, at all. It's just what they ask us to write in the essays is what I mind.
Let me put this into an example so that you guys can understand. I don't mind writing about what I did this weekend, or something to persuade someone to do something, or a speech, or anything like that. But I don't give a shit about why Alice (DON'T BE CREEPY) did this or Bob reacted that way, and I sure as hell don't want to write a full essay about it.
So basically, what I'm saying is, I agree with you on the fact that there should be essays, I DISAGREE on what the essays should be about.
Can't wait for that stalker essay! (assuming I take that class) Michael F. was telling me about it in Spanish. I think that will be the most fun I'll ever have writing an essay (for obvious reasons).
I don't even remember what it was that I said about essays that Glen is refering to and I'm too lazy to go back through all those comments to check.
It would stink if we had to take both reading and english again because then we would have to take twice the credits because it would counted as two subject areas. Something like that. (Hmm. That made more sense in my head, but I'm slightly dizzy from drinking Sprite whilst eating cantaloupe.)
DON'T FORGET ON WEDNESDAY, MESSO! We can't do it tombot because I have to take the math test. Unless, we have a sub again. But either way we still can't do it.
P.S. Can this count as 15?
Monica-
Yes, it can count as 15, if this is 16...leaving you with the honor of 17!!!!! *is jealous* (No space needed since it will not bold...YAY!) But why not tomorrow, at the very beginning of class? Like, as everyone is coming in? Whatever...we'll figure it out.
But the whole point of going to school is to learn new skills, not just write random essays about random topics. And as Glen said earlier, some things are important, and its not a good idea for the school to let people decide which important topics they, being silly teenagers, don't think they need. We need to learn everything, and practice it. If you only wanted to learn what you need in life, you'd go to a career training place like cat pickering. But our high school, and even college, force you to at least expand your boundaries into other subjects, and hopefully that'll be ok, since if you're going to college, unless its just to get a job that needs a degree, you'd enjoy learning for its own sake.
They require 4 years of English because you will be using things you learn in English no matter what profession you choose. (Teehee I almost said "England" instead of "English".)
I think they make us write essays because after college we might have to write stuff that we don't want to write about or are neutral about, but we have to do it. For example, a music teacher may have to write a letter of recommendation for a student who is applying to so and so college as a music major. It's not like the teacher really really wants to write the letter, but has to, and so I think that's why they make us write essays about stuff we don't really care about.
ERGh I hope that made sense and wasn't sounding like total randomness...my sister is being annoying with her keyboard and it's hard to concentrate.
We have learned what we need, and we have practiced it (and if you haven't learned it by now, you should have). I feel like we should be introduced to some things earlier, in middle school, and use our junior and senior year of high school to focus on what we want.
Something else I'd like to point out, which Monica just told me. I said earlier that you are required 4 English credits and 3 math. Well, Monica made the obvious connection that people are either science/math people, or english/social studies people. NOTE: THIS IS A GENERALIZATION AND NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE THIS WAY. It's just that science and math are both mathy, and ss and English rely more on writing and that sort of thing. Obviously, I like math/science. Monica pointed out to me that you are required 7.5 credits in English and SS courses, and only 6 in math and science.
I don't understand. Why doesn't the school lower the amount of english/social studies credits needed to match the math/science, or make the math/science higher, or match them somewhere in the middle? That way, us math/science geeks can take what we want senior year, without having to worry about stupid English getting in our way, the way English people can take what they want to without having to take a math course or science course. Our school is extrememly subject-ist...that has been made obvious to me.
Glen and Jesse-I don't know if you guys consider yourselves English people or not, but you do have to agree that the school obviously considers English over math, and that makes me, as a math person, extremely annoyed.
I honestly don't see where the need to write a paper on Owen Meany or The Chosen is going to come in handy. Sorry. If we go into a teaching profession where we need to write a recommendation, even if we don't want to, then WHY CAN'T WE PRACTICE PERSUASIVE WRITING? WHY CAN'T WE PRACTICE THE DEBATING SKILL? We don't, and those are the English skills we're going to need. The ones that we do practice, post high school, I'm never going to use them again.
Jesse and I have not been attacking you Messo... Don't try and make us look like villains here.
And no, not everyone can make up his/her mind after 12 years of high school. It's not a requirement for going to college, nor is it a requirement before then, and people like the option of being able to choose. Also, once you get into accounting, you may not be so entirely pleased with your choice. You may want to do something else in the end. You forget that not everything is what it's hyped up to be.
Another thing: Reading and writing aren't one and the same, but they're so intensely integrated that trying to separate them is futile. Someone has to write a book for you to read, and most people write about stuff that they read to begin with, or at least what they think someone else would want to read; e.g. what you're doing now. *COUGH* *COUGH*
Addressing your later comment... First of all, it's a little more than 3- something like 3.2- for science. Second, I'm a math/English person. 3 for math + 4 for English is roughly equal to 3.5 for social studies + 3.2 for science.
You dig it?
Math and English are the things that are on the SATs. Science and Social studies aren't.
I think it's all pretty well evened out.
And no, the school isn't subject-ist. They figure that people are going to take math all four years anyway, and that those who don't won't need to know more than basic geometry and algebra. You're thinking in terms of total credits, not in overall knowledge.
In math, you learn a ton of diverse stuff. All of it is related, of course, but you learn everything from partial fractions to Euclidean Geometry. In English, you learn to fine tune things that are really basic: writing and reading. And Ello is right, for once. You do use English no matter what profession you're going into. So, maybe you won't have to write an essay on Owen Meany again, but if you're going to be a music teacher, you're never going to have to use graphing of exponential functions. I doubt you even have to do that in accounting. In all cases, you learn stuff that's absolutely useless depending on your profession.
If anyone's being subject-ist, it's you. At least in English you learn to do stuff that you'll need later, even if you don't need all of it. For me, everything I'll probably ever need to know in math (except during college), I learned by 5th grade. 6th at the latest. For someone else, they might use stuff that they learned in 8th and beyond, but not me, and, if you're going into accounting, I doubt you either.
Actually, the district puts a LOT of emphasis on math and science. They push kids to go years ahead in math; there are freshman taking math analysis when I'll be taking that junior year; and I was originally one year ahead! In fact, the district puts so much emphasis on math that it is very frustrating and makes me feel like shit, because there are people who judge me because I'm not taking math analysis or calculus. I'm 'one year ahead' as it is, but there are people who are being pushed even FARTHER ahead, two or three or four years, so sometimes there are people who think I'm stupid because I am in measly Algebra 2. Oh, and of course it's Algebra 2 'AB'. They have to divide the maths into academic, accelerated, AB, and BC. So I'm not the same as those taking BC. It's stupid and insulting.
Science? By pushing FRESHMEN into an AP class, the district is totally spazzing over science. Freshmen. In an AP class. I am a sophomore and I haven't taken a whole AP class yet. Yet the poor freshmen are pushed into AP Biology. It's obsessive.
In my opinion, the district is more obsessed with math and science than English and social studies. They push kids to go ahead in math. It's stupid because then you miss some basic stuff. And it makes others feel like shit.
I have heard that the superintendent pushes for a very rigorous math/science curriculum. He puts a lot of emphasis on math/science. Not so much on English/social studies. And the arts? Ha, who cares about that! It is a ridiculous attitude. But that is another story. (I'm probably going to end up writing a whole post about that.)
And Gleniffer? You are an imbecile.
"And Ello is right, for once."
Go jump off a cliff.
Duly noted.
And I have a feeling that if you did post something about the music departments around the country being under-funded and under-appreciated, you'd certainly get a lot of comments on it. It's a really big deal, and stuff that people nationwide actually write articles about. It's not just the personal opinion of a couple little kids, it's a really big debate.
One that our moron of a president doesn't have the slightest clue about... >_>
And I might suggest that as another post :-P
Ello, you make it sound so bad that the school promotes the sciences. If people can handle a harder course, then they should be put in it. I agree that people shouldn't look down upon you for being in a lower level, buts thats what it is. A level. We need levels, or else the people who could be taking calculus now would be forced to take Algebra 2 AB.
Yes, our district gives kids a lot of pressure to take the hardest classes they can. But they want us to succeed after high school, and thats he best thing they can do for us: let us take whatever class we can.
We have a lot of people who can handle AP Bio in freshman year. Other schools, like Great Valley, don't even ALLOW people to take any AP class till junior year. Honestly, I think they're doing their kids a disservice in this, and that we're lucky that Conestoga promotes and allows people to take harder classes.
I agree that focus should also be paid to the arts, and I definitely agree that music needs more funding. But we have a great English and Social Studies curriculum, too! Stogs definitely puts a lot of effort into its sciences, but besides music, I haven't seen any proof that any of the other arts, or social studies, are ignored in any sense.
The only thing that I have to say to all of those cuz there is so much and I'm being called off the computer as we speak-
I completely agree that the school should put a little more focus on the arts. I mean, yeah, there's studio and a lot of other art courses, and orchestra and band and choruses (chori? sorry, thinking in terms of Latin) and all that good stuff, but there is so much nmore focus on the boring core subjects.
Which brings me to another point-obviously the school has not much of a focus on languages either. I mean, a lot of people drop their language after their sophomore year. And check out the German teacher, who was kicked out of the TV department...AND THEN HIRED AS A GERMAN TEACHER. Check out the poor Latin 3 kids in Peel's class ,who are always at least an entire chapter behind, putting them indanger for midterms and finals.
K, yeah, being screamed at so...yeah.
In response to your comment, Gleniffer, about the lack of attention paid to music:
You say that the president doesn't give a damn. He is indeed an imbecile. However, although it is important, music in our schools is currently the least of the government's problems.
There is many a comment on this post! Yay
Messo:
I do agree that language isn't really emphasized enough. German teacher: definitely good example.
Post a Comment