(CW: CSA) Josh & Anna 47: Serial SM Commenter Anna Silent on Family Posts Lately. I Wonder Why?

[AnywhereButHere]

I love reading and will read almost anything. I hate reading plays though. I get distracted by the format. There's no flow, and add in the flowery language in Shakespeare... Forget it! My junior year of high school, I took my regular junior year English class, and had to take an elective as well. The only one that fit into my schedule was, you guessed it, Shakespeare. Of course. So, that year, I had to read two of his plays for my regular English class and six of them for the elective. Ugh. 

[Destiny]

I have no idea why in the all-encompassing fuck we insist on making our kids READ Shakespeare, or any plays for that matter. It's not meant to be read. It's meant to be WATCHED and it makes about 18947382% more sense that way. I've been saying this for years. I struggled hard with Romeo and Juliet until someone pulled out the 1970s version and showed it to me and then everything made sense.

[SassyPants]

4 hours ago, Gobsmacked said:

….So did fully vaccinated and boosted son  #2.  Confirmation text arrived today. He has been isolating all weekend.  Me and son #1 both tested negative with home test so trotted to our nearest walk-in centre an hour ago. Hopefully all will be ok. His girlfriends’ test was  negative thankfully. They now can’t spend their first Christmas together sadly. 
His job requires him to test 3 times a week and he is fully vaccinated.  The new variant is a sneaky wee bugger. 

I’m sorry about your family and son. 4 members of my family are set to travel internationally next week. We are all vax’d and boostered and it will be a miracle if we all test negative. I am scheduled for multiple tests between Friday and Monday, when we depart. Fingers crossed.

[feministxtian]

7 minutes ago, AnywhereButHere said:

I love reading and will read almost anything. I hate reading plays though. I get distracted by the format. There's no flow, and add in the flowery language in Shakespeare... Forget it! My junior year of high school, I took my regular junior year English class, and had to take an elective as well. The only one that fit into my schedule was, you guessed it, Shakespeare. Of course. So, that year, I had to read two of his plays for my regular English class and six of them for the elective. Ugh. 

Yup! Just turn it into a novel, please? I need all the descriptions, they help me imagine the setting. Updating Beowulf and the Canterbury Tales to modern English won't screw up the story. I don't see how reading these things in the "original" make you any more literate than someone who reads other fiction like The Dragonriders of Pern (on my schedule for a thorough re-read) or even Terry Pratchett (Let's hear it for the Discworld). Admittedly though, I cannot force myself to read many of "the Classics", they're just not in a genre that appeals to me. 

[Alisamer]

1 minute ago, Destiny said:

I have no idea why in the all-encompassing fuck we insist on making our kids READ Shakespeare, or any plays for that matter. It's not meant to be read. It's meant to be WATCHED and it makes about 18947382% more sense that way. I've been saying this for years. I struggled hard with Romeo and Juliet until someone pulled out the 1970s version and showed it to me and then everything made sense.

I agree. Like, I personally think the best way to teach a play would be to actually watch a version (or two very different ones even) - with captioning on if possible - and discuss, and maybe even have an impromptu performance of a couple important scenes. 

I don't think it's the play itself that is important, anyway, even with Shakespeare. The important part is the discussions - why did he make these choices, why is this play set in this location and time period, how much would the people watching the play have known about that location and time period, was this just for entertainment or was he making a statement, can you think of other books or movies or media that are telling the same story? 

To me, the context, history and cultural impact of the play is more important than sitting down and reading the play like it was a book. And being able to ask questions rather than just absorb media is more important than that.

(And I totally get that teachers do not have the time, support, or pay to allow them to actually go this in depth much of the time, especially if it isn't on the end of year tests - and that most teachers try to get as close to this as they can, anyway!)

5 minutes ago, feministxtian said:

Yup! Just turn it into a novel, please? I need all the descriptions, they help me imagine the setting. Updating Beowulf and the Canterbury Tales to modern English won't screw up the story. I don't see how reading these things in the "original" make you any more literate than someone who reads other fiction like The Dragonriders of Pern (on my schedule for a thorough re-read) or even Terry Pratchett (Let's hear it for the Discworld). Admittedly though, I cannot force myself to read many of "the Classics", they're just not in a genre that appeals to me. 

Yes, yes, yes. I mean, I like the original and want it there as reference, but novelizing this stuff into English would make it more digestible.

I'm like that with comic books, too. I'd much prefer a novel with illustrations added. I love the art, but can't deal with the info-dumps shoehorned into dialogue to fit the drawings. It just reads awkwardly to me.

To me, reading a novel is like watching a movie in my head. The play format and comic book format break that enough to make it not flow at all. 

[feministxtian]

1 minute ago, Alisamer said:

To me, reading a novel is like watching a movie in my head. The play format and comic book format break that enough to make it not flow at all. 

Why I skip a lot of movies based on novels. I start getting pissed at how they changed the character, the scene, this or that doesn't resemble the description in the book. I think I can count on one hand the movies that followed the novel. 

I don't like graphic novels either. I have the pictures in my head, the movie in my head. Don't ruin it with your version. 

[Nothing if not critical]

15 minutes ago, feministxtian said:

I don't see how reading these things in the "original" make you any more literate than someone who reads other fiction

Oh, I don't for a moment think it does, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.

Actually, reading a modernized version makes far more sense, since you're bound to run into misunderstandings when you read the original (I remember a linguistics class on Othello that mainly focussed on all the parts that literary critics got completely wrong because they didn't understand Early Modern English properly and assumed completely different meanings than Shakespeare intended).

I just really, really enjoyed learning Middle English (even the grammar), but that's because I'm a nerd. Can't help it.

[Hane]

59 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

A bazillion years ago when I was 14 my 9th grade English Teacher gave us this introduction to reading Romeo and Juliet 

—The ode to teen suicide that for some reason they think it’s important for a bunch of hormonal teens to find romantic—

A recent article pointed out that this entire disaster was the adults’ fault.

If Friar Lawrence had acted upon his idea that a match between Romeo and Juliet could end the feud and had stepped forward to serve as mediary, the whole tragedy could have been averted. Remember, when Romeo crashed the Capulets’ party and Tybalt got all ticked off, Lord Capulet told him, “Leave him alone—he’s behaving himself.”

[feministxtian]

13 minutes ago, Nothing if not critical said:

Oh, I don't for a moment think it does, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.

I did not mean to make you feel singled out...I was sort of going back to my 10th grade English class, the one where I flipped the English Lit book on the floor and informed the teacher I wasn't going to read any of the "classic" selections because they had nothing that grabbed my attention. I mean, Dickenson, Eyre, hell, they're romances. Not my thing. I want technology, explosions, a few cuss words, a bad guy I can really hate, or Dragons and imagining the Weyrs and Holds, or imagining totally new worlds. 

I think it also came from a defensive point of view because I do detest these "classics". But with my self-confidence issues and horrid case of imposter's syndrome, I feel like an illiterate boob when other folks are discussing "the classics" that I've never read, never wanted to read. 

[Nothing if not critical]

12 minutes ago, feministxtian said:

I think it also came from a defensive point of view because I do detest these "classics". But with my self-confidence issues and horrid case of imposter's syndrome, I feel like an illiterate boob when other folks are discussing "the classics" that I've never read, never wanted to read. 

I think we all have stuff we love and stuff we hate, sometimes for no good reason. I detest anything written by Charles Dickens with a fiery passion. I also never got into classic American literature (except for The Scarlet Letter). And while I enjoyed Middle English, I drew the line at Beowulf and Old English. Oh, and to make things worse, I would never voluntarily read any classics in my own language (German) - Goethe and Schiller bore me to death.

I love urban fantasy and think the Dragonriders of Pern are super cool. Also, GNU Terry Pratchett. As far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly legitimate to read whatever gives you the most pleasure and nothing else. Life is too short to waste it on reading "David Copperfield" (obviously, if you like DC, there's nothing wrong with that either. I had to read it for my college classes, and I spent three months struggling with it until I tossed it into a corner and went to read something else).

Edited December 20, 2021 by Nothing if not critical

[feministxtian]

@Nothing if not critical Dickens...oh hell no. Looking at my book collection (I have 4 7' x 3' bookcases FULL of books and I think there may be a box or two that haven't been unpacked yet and had to move all my ebooks to the cloud to avoid overwhelming my iPad), my tastes run to hard sci-fi like Ben Bova, Action/Adventure with Tom Clancy and Clive Cussler, Anne Mc Cafferey, Michael Crichton, Terry Pratchett, Arthur C. Clarke, Kim Stanley Robinson, Star Trek novels. Lots of non-fiction primarily about NASA and astronaut biographies/autobiographies, a theology collection, and old ANSI references that I have in a bunch of binders (yes, those get referred to regularly). It all screams NERD NERD NERD. 
 I'm fairly literate but not "typically" literate as in I hate the "classics" and won't read them. Hang on, let me take that back. I do like Orwell, Huxley, Bradbury classics, Brave New World, Nineteen Eighty Four, Fahrenheit 451.

[EmmieJ]

23 hours ago, Jana814 said:

I’m suppose to spend a week with a client (December 24th till the 31st) they are going to Aruba. My client told me the only way they will cancel is if someone tests positive. She had 3 kids & they along with her & her husband are vaccinated. 

I hope you and your client and family don't catch Covid.  Being vaccinated won't stop you from getting it - it's just supposed to hopefully mean a "mild" case - but even a mild case is pretty miserable and could lead to long-lasting after effects.  You might want to rethink that trip, but of course, everyone has to make their own best decisions.  What would happen if you or one of your group tests positive while in Aruba?  Wouldn't be able to return home as scheduled.  I wish you the best of luck.

2 hours ago, Alisamer said:

I think with the "education" the Duggar kids got, the Bible might as well be the Canterbury Tales, in the original.

(I still have all but the last line of that memorized from 30 years ago!)

LOL!  Good point.  And now I need to put "re-read the Canterbury Tales" on my list of things to do.  It's been years and years.

[Alisamer]

13 minutes ago, Nothing if not critical said:

I think we all have stuff we love and stuff we hate, sometimes for no good reason.

Same. The only book I wasn't able to force myself to finish in school was Pride and Prejudice. Hated it. I know Jane Austen is much loved generally, but I just can't deal. 

At one point I sat down and forced myself to read one of the "classic" short stories - I had thought it might have been the Legend of Sleepy Hollow, but it might have been a Christmas Carol from Dickens. I just remember at one point there was a super long list of what foods they had at some party, and the whole thing was about 90% description and 10% plot. Which I like plenty of description, but I felt like the characters might die of old age before they got to do anything. And I love both those stories in their boiled down forms, in movies and such.

Some classics are amazing, some not so much. I think a familiarity with them is important because they get used as cultural shorthand often, but reading them in full, is maybe not necessary. Nobody's ever going to ask me to list the 15 different types of pies that were on the table in that story, or need me to describe the Von Tassel's house in enough detail to recreate it. 

Maybe what I'm saying is that the stories and characters and the messages the stories are meant to teach are more important than the works themselves.  

[formergothardite]

I cannot make it through the Lord of the Rings books. The first book is okay, but by the second book it seems like there is pages and pages just describing stuff. And then there are random characters that pop up and seem important but are never mentioned again. It is supposed to be this epic adventure but I lose the plot in the five million tiny details about a sword. 

[feministxtian]

I do like Poe's short stories, they're dark and deep and full of twists and turns (The Telltale Heart). Thing is though, even more "modern" fiction can be a social commentary. For example, Pratchett's Discworld novels. In them, he explores racism (humans vs. dwarves vs. trolls), environmental issues (The River Ankh that is so polluted you can walk across it), and others. Kim Stanley Robinson deals with environmental issues mostly, Bova deals with bigotry and human relationships. There's lessons to be learned and ideas to be explored in just about every fiction book. An author acquaintance of mine, who writes fiction and non-fiction says that the fiction allows him to say things that otherwise would not be terribly popular in a non-fiction book. He's free to criticize certain agencies, government offices, large corporations, by making it fictional. 

 

[church_of_dog]

Count me among those who don't like Shakespeare or any "old English" -- my brain is just too literal for that.  With something like the journals of Lewis and Clark, I can tolerate the old-style english while grumbling, but I know that's simply how it was in those days, with different styles and many people not highly literate, not to mention a lack of spelling convention as compared to today.  But when it's fiction as well, I lose my patience -- dammit, why can't Shakespeare just say what he means instead of making every goddam sentence a flowery must-interpret poem!

So, I have ended up reading largely non-fiction, plus I have a very narrow set of interests regarding fiction:  either I want to learn something from it (ie mysteries are a chance to hone my observation and deduction and critical thinking skills) or I want to enjoy a specific kind of fantasy -- usually in the form of "a quaint small town that exemplifies where I would like to live".

All that is well and good, but then plop weirdo reader me down into a job at a library -- patrons really want their library staff to read/value the same things they do, and I had to find polite ways of responding when my answer to their "have you read this?" was "no" and they would come back with "oh, but you MUST!"  Fortunately I usually have a long to-read list and could just politely indicate that I might get to their recommendation at some point, knowing they would have new favorites by their next visit.

My bookshelf is small, because I'm trying to be a minimalist, and I rarely reread anything, so unless it's a reference of some kind, or has sentimental meaning (I do still have the Winnie-the-Pooh my grandparents gave me for my fifth birthday ❤️ ) or is something I like enough to want to have on hand to lend out, I generally don't need to keep it.  

Plus, nearly everything I've read in the past 3-4 years is in audiobook form -- I probably don't read more than 1-2 print copy books per year these days, while I generally listen to 11-12 books per month.

Edited December 20, 2021 by church_of_dog

[Bobology]

1 hour ago, feministxtian said:

I don't like graphic novels either.

While I've never read a graphic novel, I've read a fair amount of graphic non-fiction and really enjoy them: Jeffrey Dahmer by a high school friend, life of Mama Cass Elliot, Van Gogh, etc. I'm not  a great reader* so for me the illustrations add to the information.

*All these classic books that are read by students in public schools... I read the Comic Classics (I don't know if they are still published) and aced most tests. I'm not bragging about it, but I'm also not ashamed.

[postscript]

I agree that Shakespeare (and plays in general) are meant to be seen. Shakespeare on the page is difficult to parse, but put the words onstage or on screen, and the story comes alive. 

I’ve found that I go through phases in my reading life. At one point, I read a lot of fantasy, but now I very seldom read any. I’ve also gone through historical fiction, cozy mystery and classics phases. I love Victorian doorstop novels, but at this point, if I reread one, it will be in some sort of audio format (perhaps dramatized). I get a completely different take on books by listening rather than reading. At the moment, I’m more likely to read non-fiction than fiction. 

My high school English classes didn’t focus on older classics. We had to read Huck Finn, Shakespeare and Crime and Punishment, but not Pride and Prejudice (which I love) or A Tale of Two Cities (which I’m meh about, though I generally like Dickens). We read A Separate Peace, When the Legends Die, The Chosen, Of Mice and Men, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, all of which I disliked. This from someone who will read a restaurant menu if that’s the only written material on offer. In retrospect, I think it was because they all had male protagonists and I had a hard time identifying with them. I need some common ground with a protagonist, and for some reason, I didn’t click with any of these. 

[käsekuchen]

"No Fear Shakespeare" does great comics for Shakespeare.

I agree with what others have said about the classics. I really like some, but I detest others. When I started uni, I always felt like the most stupid and uneducated person in the room because suddenly everyone was reading Dostoevsky and Proust and Kant for pleasure. Thankfully at some point I figured out that nice people don't belittle you if you didn't enjoy their particular taste of classics and that the others weren't great people to hang with. These days, I'm okay with reading romance novels and fantasy and non-fiction and yes, some classics - my taste in books doesn't make me any less smart and I feel like modern romance novels in particular get a bad reputation simply because of their target audience. It also really depends on what mood I'm in - if I'm sad, I might not be in the mood for a non-fiction book on colonialism, while on other days I'm tired of romance.

I also really recommemd signing up at your local library. It saves money and time (if you go for eBooks) and it helps the environment.

[Proverbs31]

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

I cannot make it through the Lord of the Rings books. The first book is okay, but by the second book it seems like there is pages and pages just describing stuff. And then there are random characters that pop up and seem important but are never mentioned again. It is supposed to be this epic adventure but I lose the plot in the five million tiny details about a sword. 

Same. I've tried and tried because my husband loves them, but they bore me to tears. JUST STOP DESCRIBING EVERY. EFFING. THING.  The faux medievalism makes me cringe, too. (It's also one of the things I find icky about fundies. The Pearl wedding, for that divorced daughter, is all about wheeling white steeds and flowing gowns on a fair maiden at sunset. And the Morton/Smith weddings are similar - all the cosplay makes me feel that they should have gone to Ren Faires, and not tried to make a life from the fantasy.)

I don't think Josh is ignorant for not knowing that Shakespeare definition - we certainly weren't taught that in the UK in English lessons. I think he's stupid because he assumed he knew the answer, when the way that test was framed made it clear it was unlikely to be the obvious one and Google might be your friend. He lacked the humility to think that he might be wrong. One of the smartest women I've ever known isn't very literate - I worked for her as a student, in the bar, and it wasn't till she friended me on Facebook that I discovered she has low literacy. It was a good lesson for me, that academic opportunity and native intelligence weren't necessarily related. She ran that bar with such aplomb and authority and kindness, and knew every single student (you can drink at 18 in the UK) and what was going on in their lives. She was universally respected and everyone had such affection for her. But... she would have damn well double checked that answer. And she'd never have stated that she was smarter than most people, either - even though she clearly is. 

Intelligence isn't just about knowing things. It's about being open to learning - and to being wrong, I think. And by that metric, Josh is extremely stupid. 

19 minutes ago, käsekuchen said:

"No Fear Shakespeare" does great comics for Shakespeare.

I agree with what others have said about the classics. I really like some, but I detest others. When I started uni, I always felt like the most stupid and uneducated person in the room because suddenly everyone was reading Dostoevsky and Proust and Kant for pleasure. Thankfully at some point I figured out that nice people don't belittle you if you didn't enjoy their particular taste of classics and that the others weren't great people to hang with. These days, I'm okay with reading romance novels and fantasy and non-fiction and yes, some classics - my taste in books doesn't make me any less smart and I feel like modern romance novels in particular get a bad reputation simply because of their target audience. It also really depends on what mood I'm in - if I'm sad, I might not be in the mood for a non-fiction book on colonialism, while on other days I'm tired of romance.

I also really recommemd signing up at your local library. It saves money and time (if you go for eBooks) and it helps the environment.

Modern romance novels get a bad rap because they're aimed at women, I think. It's reflexive misogyny to denigrate escapist fiction for women. Marion Keyes once pointed out that a man who wrote books about love would be called honest, brave and vulnerable. Women, and they just assume it's to be sold in airports. 
 

[Meggo]

3 hours ago, Nothing if not critical said:

Oh, I don't for a moment think it does, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.

Actually, reading a modernized version makes far more sense, since you're bound to run into misunderstandings when you read the original (I remember a linguistics class on Othello that mainly focussed on all the parts that literary critics got completely wrong because they didn't understand Early Modern English properly and assumed completely different meanings than Shakespeare intended).

I just really, really enjoyed learning Middle English (even the grammar), but that's because I'm a nerd. Can't help it.

Yep - I'm all for the novelization/modernization of the classics. I read parts of Beowulf in Old English but it's because I'm a language and reading geek. I don't expect anyone else to have done that and would never look down upon them for having not done it. 
I don't do complex math - I don't understand a lot of things about space & physics & the human body - we all have our strengths. 

I DO think -the historical context around what you're reading is VASTLY important - and sometimes reading things in another language (like old English) twists your brain in interesting ways that I don't think are bad. But.. it's not for everyone. 

[karenb4729]

8 hours ago, Gobsmacked said:

….So did fully vaccinated and boosted son  #2.  Confirmation text arrived today. He has been isolating all weekend.  Me and son #1 both tested negative with home test so trotted to our nearest walk-in centre an hour ago. Hopefully all will be ok. His girlfriends’ test was  negative thankfully. They now can’t spend their first Christmas together sadly. 
His job requires him to test 3 times a week and he is fully vaccinated.  The new variant is a sneaky wee bugger. 

My daughter in law was fully vaccinated and she got it too, but she also does chemo for her MS.  My son (her husband) also fully vaccinated got it too but with very minor symptoms.  Delta is sneaky and I would hate to be unvaccinated with how it attacks.  I should say that both DIL and Son hadn't had a chance to receive their boosters.

[EmCatlyn]

6 hours ago, backyard sylph said:

I remember, back at some church I attended in the previous millennium—went through many via Mom and a husband—taking a weekly class in how to understand the Bible, because the person who was teaching it made it rather scholarly, which appealed to me. He didn't interpret anything at first, or much at all. Instead, he discussed why the language was used, a bit of history of the time periods, and some tools of rhetoric. I found all of that terribly interesting. But it made me far less convinced than ever about any of it being the "inerrant" word of God. The final nail...let's say in the coffin. I wonder if he thought it would go over everyone's heads and they would just take from it "smart people tell me things." Anyway.

I enjoy a lot of scripture as much as ever because I enjoy language and the historical use of it. But I've noticed people don't enjoy it when you bring up verses that sort of oppose their ideas of what their religion says. 

My first extended exposure to the Bible was a “Bible as Literature” class in college. We read the King James version with lots of both literary and historical context.  I had no trouble with the Early Modern English — the same professor had taught Shakespeare, and I loved it.  We were not studying it to discover the word of God but to learn about a central work of English literature.

The KJV is great poetry because the translators came from a culture that valued poetry.  For “worship” or understanding “the word of God,” however, it has two problems: the translation is not always accurate and people today don’t really understand the language.  The attachment of Fundies to the KJV is therefore quite funny.  They don’t know that part of the reason for the ubiquity of the KJV had to do with it being out of copyright. (I have also taken a course on the History of the Bible.)

As you say, there  are several much better translations out there, and—if you are sufficiently interested—there are online concordances and side-by-side translations including some that give you the original Hebrew, Greek and/or Latin. To be sure all the versions have been written by men and while one could argue for some of the writers having had divine insight, it is clear that not all did—or they wouldn’t contradict each other. 😉

It is really sad that people who do not read with any subtlety—and whose knowledge of the language is very limited—become fixated on the KJV as the source of truth and guidance.  As for Josh,  his Bible reading in jail might be more fun if he could really read the KJV or if he is allowed a good translation.  There are a lot of sexy stories in the OT as well as some exciting violence and adventure.  

 

[feministxtian]

I was thinking, as I was mopping my floor, that there are many different types of intelligence. Even within academics, there are different types of intelligence. I have rather narrow interests and attribute that to the ASD wiring in my brain, so while I can talk all day on certain topics, I'm utterly clueless on others. I mean, I might be "above average" when it comes to NASA but an utter moron when it comes to most other subjects. There are those who have incredible emotional/empathetic intelligence and can pick up on non-verbal clues in people. Not me...I don't even like people most of the time. Some people are great at diving in and helping to solve problems or can bring order out of utter chaos, That's a type of intelligence I wish I had. 

So...I think what I'm trying to say is that most folks are very intelligent in ways that aren't academic. But those who believe they're "more intelligent than others" may be dealing with some sort of Dunning-Kruger effect. Me? Imposter syndrome. 

I do remember reading that most of the folks who deal with imposter syndrome may not be "more intelligent" but they're more aware of what they don't know. That's the intelligence that everyone needs. 

[EmCatlyn]

4 hours ago, Destiny said:

I have no idea why in the all-encompassing fuck we insist on making our kids READ Shakespeare, or any plays for that matter. It's not meant to be read. It's meant to be WATCHED and it makes about 18947382% more sense that way. I've been saying this for years. I struggled hard with Romeo and Juliet until someone pulled out the 1970s version and showed it to me and then everything made sense.

There is a difference between “reading” and “studying” something.  I think Shakespeare should be “studied” as a poet and for his gift of characterization.  The plays should be seen performed—ideally on the stage, but a good film is second best.

The last few times I taught a Shakespeare play (at the college level, in a general education course) what I did was assign a good version of the film then assign a few specific scenes to study/discuss in class, then assign scenes from different films and have the students discuss those.  I felt it gave the students a much better sense of Shakespeare than reading/pretending to read the whole play.