Strange Classes you've taken

[peter12]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

Wow these English classes seem actually decent. I am going for my 1st year at MRC this fall and I have English 1101 and it is "Critical Writing and Reading". I swear to god if I have to read Shakespeare I am going to kill myself.


CALM sucked. It was super easy, but my teacher was a dick. I found it funny how one of the guys in my class failed twice, and it was his third time taking it. You need CALM to get your diploma I think, thus he had to keep re-doing it. And I think he still failed the 3rd time.

Shakespeare is amazing, but please, by all means continue your mediocrity into post-secondary education.

Philistine!

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by peter12

Shakespeare is amazing, but please, by all means continue your mediocrity into post-secondary education.

Philistine!

Shakespeare is not amazing. Talking like a ###### does not make you amazing. I hate Shakespeare, he is everything wrong with the English language.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

Shakespeare is not amazing. Talking like a ###### does not make you amazing. I hate Shakespeare, he is everything wrong with the English language.

He invented the English language.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

At one time grade 12 in Alberta was recognized as equivalent to first year university at UBC. It wasn't that BC education was bad as it got the same recognition as the rest of Canadian provincial educations, it's just that Alberta had the best education system. Nowadays there probably isn't much difference province to province.

I remember a few of my friends took this philosophy (?) class and it was simple boolean logic. A and B, A or B, Not A, A xor B and so on. For a bunch of computer engineers, they thought it was a joke, but the arts students were getting so stressed and going "OMG I DON'T GET THIS WTFFFFF HOLY CRAP THIS IS HARD!!!"

So... I wouldn't say the Alberta education was world class or anything

[tranquil]

A strange class I've taken was the study of Revelations from the King James Bible, There was several hints that everybody was a Christian there, so it was like being at church, a very conservative church.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

Shakespeare is not amazing. Talking like a ###### does not make you amazing. I hate Shakespeare, he is everything wrong with the English language.

And Maurice Richard was a floater.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

Shakespeare is amazing.

fyp.

If you get the right teacher, you will love Shakespeare. I promise you that. Shakespeare's comedies are often simultaneously the most incredible poetry you've ever read, and the dirtiest, most raunchy comedy you could imagine.

If you hate Shakespeare, there's really only one possibility. You haven't yet bothered to read him. You may have skimmed through a passage or two, and decided you didn't like it. But "not liking" Shakespeare is a bit like "not liking" the King James Bible. It's a foundational text of our culture, it's entertaining, it's clever, it's raunchy and poetic.

Plus, I guarantee that in the next day or so you will, without realizing it, use a word that Shakespeare invented.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

fyp.

If you get the right teacher, you will love Shakespeare. I promise you that. Shakespeare's comedies are often simultaneously the most incredible poetry you've ever read, and the dirtiest, most raunchy comedy you could imagine.

If you hate Shakespeare, there's really only one possibility. You haven't yet bothered to read him. You may have skimmed through a passage or two, and decided you didn't like it. But "not liking" Shakespeare is a bit like "not liking" the King James Bible. It's a foundational text of our culture, it's entertaining, it's clever, it's raunchy and poetic.

Plus, I guarantee that in the next day or so you will, without realizing it, use a word that Shakespeare invented.

I've read at least 4 works, and I f'in hate Shakespeare. Just because something has been deemed to be important doesn't mean we all have to enjoy reading it.

[3 Justin 3]

I hate reading the plays (but I like the movies on them ), I don't excel in English, but I am not an idiot, but what in the fata is Shakespeare talking about half the time. In Grade 12 we would take 30 seconds to read one guy say 12 lines, then we would analyze it for nearly 10 minutes because it is so complicated. Are we all James Lipton or Professors of Literature?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

I hate reading the plays (but I like the movies on them ), I don't excel in English, but I am not an idiot, but what in the fata is Shakespeare talking about half the time. In Grade 12 we would take 30 seconds to read one guy say 12 lines, then we would analyze it for nearly 10 minutes because it is so complicated. Are we all James Lipton or Professors of Literature?

Sounds like you had a bad teacher. Shakespeare should be approached with the goal of making him easy to read, not hard. Once you get used to the diction, it starts to roll off the tongue, and the words come alive if you start to act them out in context.

I would never spend 10 minutes in class analyzing 12 lines. That would, in my view, be a kind of violence to the text, which after all was intended to be performed, not read silently.

The fact that you like the movies says it all. You do like Shakespeare, when the form is close to something that we might say Shakespeare intended. He wrote his plays to be performed before an audience, not dissected in a classroom. A good teacher simply moderates the process of reading-for-the-performance, and then allows students to perform the analysis once they have learned how to bring the text to life.

And yeah, I've taught Shakespeare before. I've converted tougher nuts than you!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by valo403

I've read at least 4 works, and I f'in hate Shakespeare. Just because something has been deemed to be important doesn't mean we all have to enjoy reading it.

It certainly doesn't. But quality is actually not completely relative. In other words, every opinion on Shakespeare is not equally valid. In the end, perhaps what you should ask is why do people deem Shakespeare to be important? He's certainly not the only writer out there in the world of English letters. Is it possible they see something in there that you haven't yet, in spite of a cursory reading of just 4 of his many works? (FYI--38 plays, 154 sonnets and two narrative poems. You haven't even scratched the surface)

Another way to put it is this: you may not like Shakespeare yet. But if you swallow your pride and give him the chance he deserves, I guarantee you will.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It certainly doesn't. But quality is actually not completely relative. In other words, every opinion on Shakespeare is not equally valid. In the end, perhaps what you should ask is why do people deem Shakespeare to be important? He's certainly not the only writer out there in the world of English letters. Is it possible they see something in there that you haven't yet, in spite of a cursory reading of just 4 of his many works? (FYI--38 plays, 154 sonnets and two narrative poems. You haven't even scratched the surface)

Another way to put it is this: you may not like Shakespeare yet. But if you swallow your pride and give him the chance he deserves, I guarantee you will.

Just so we're clear, my opinion isn't valid because it's not the same as that of other people who know better? Okay.

I understand that I haven't "scratched the surface", but the fact remains I haven't enjoyed what I have read so far and I don't see any reason to go back to reading it anytime soon. If I'm going to spend my time reading for pleasure, which I rarely do as I spend an immense amount of time reading for work, I'll read something I enjoy. It's not a matter of 'swallowing my pride', I just don't see the need to suffer through something I don't like simply because other people have found value to it.

I've read plenty of other literature and continue to do so when I get the chance, I simply don't find any enjoyment in Shakespeare. If that means my opinion is invalid because other people are apparently smarter than me, well thems the breaks I guess.

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Sounds like you had a bad teacher. Shakespeare should be approached with the goal of making him easy to read, not hard. Once you get used to the diction, it starts to roll off the tongue, and the words come alive if you start to act them out in context.

I would never spend 10 minutes in class analyzing 12 lines. That would, in my view, be a kind of violence to the text, which after all was intended to be performed, not read silently.

The fact that you like the movies says it all. You do like Shakespeare, when the form is close to something that we might say Shakespeare intended. He wrote his plays to be performed before an audience, not dissected in a classroom. A good teacher simply moderates the process of reading-for-the-performance, and then allows students to perform the analysis once they have learned how to bring the text to life.

And yeah, I've taught Shakespeare before. I've converted tougher nuts than you!

See, I like watching the stuff I just HATE reading and analyzing it. I wanted to see a Shakespeareian (sp?) so bad when I went to London at the new amphitheater thing they built, but it was in November so it was closed. I saw Avenue Q instead.

[enthused]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I remember a few of my friends took this philosophy (?) class and it was simple boolean logic. A and B, A or B, Not A, A xor B and so on. For a bunch of computer engineers, they thought it was a joke, but the arts students were getting so stressed and going "OMG I DON'T GET THIS WTFFFFF HOLY CRAP THIS IS HARD!!!"

So... I wouldn't say the Alberta education was world class or anything

A couple arts students who have a difficult time in a philosophy class does not indicate that Alberta has a poor education system. Not everyone is going to excel at every subject, people certainly have their strengths and weaknesses.

Sure, some art students may struggle at certain courses that say, engineering students find easy. However, there are some engineers who can't write a paper, let alone a proper sentence to save their lives. Not everyone is perfect in every subject, but that doesn't in any way say that Alberta has a poor education system.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by valo403

Just so we're clear, my opinion isn't valid because it's not the same as that of other people who know better? Okay.

I understand that I haven't "scratched the surface", but the fact remains I haven't enjoyed what I have read so far and I don't see any reason to go back to reading it anytime soon. If I'm going to spend my time reading for pleasure, which I rarely do as I spend an immense amount of time reading for work, I'll read something I enjoy. It's not a matter of 'swallowing my pride', I just don't see the need to suffer through something I don't like simply because other people have found value to it.

I've read plenty of other literature and continue to do so when I get the chance, I simply don't find any enjoyment in Shakespeare. If that means my opinion is invalid because other people are apparently smarter than me, well thems the breaks I guess.

OK. If you feel like taking umbrage, be my guest. I do think it's weird that after reading a tiny fraction of Shakespeare's work you're not only willing to dismiss the rest, but also to be really defensive and pissy about it. But hey--as you say, "them's the breaks."

If what you got from my post was "other people are smarter than you" than maybe the problem is that you feel threatened by people who like Shakespeare. Just a thought--since that wasn't at all what I was saying.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

See, I like watching the stuff I just HATE reading and analyzing it.

See, I think that's totally legitimate. That's the form that Shakespeare intended. So don't let anyone tell you that you don't like Shakespeare; you do. You just prefer not to do violence to the text by reading it silently and then performing analysis in class. I respect that.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

See, I like watching the stuff I just HATE reading and analyzing it. I wanted to see a Shakespeareian (sp?) so bad when I went to London at the new amphitheater thing they built, but it was in November so it was closed. I saw Avenue Q instead.

One of the biggest travesties of our education system is that students are made to critically analyze the great literary works of our culture. Shakespeare's are more than plays, they are amazing pieces of poetry that have some absolutely important insights into the questions of life. Read him like you would anything else and draw what meaning you can for yourself.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Once you get used to the diction, it starts to roll off the tongue, and the words come alive if you start to act them out in context.

Are you saying you like the way Shakespeare's impressive diction feels on your tongue?

You know, the worst Shakespeare-related film I've ever seen was this Al Pacino version of Richard II; it's actually more of a critical look at staging the play as opposed to a film adaptation, and they spend about half an hour talking about the first soliloquy, and then rush through the rest of the play in record time (pausing to argue about whether they should cast Winona Ryder in it). It's exactly what you're talking about, if you over-analyze the text, you ruin its ability to tell a story; Shakespeare is a lot of fun because you can plunge into his work at incredible depth and still find new layers of subtext, but typically the strength of his plays is how they work as complete stories, and you can't appreciate that if you just dive right into analyzing and dissecting every word.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

OK. If you feel like taking umbrage, be my guest. I do think it's weird that after reading a tiny fraction of Shakespeare's work you're not only willing to dismiss the rest, but also to be really defensive and pissy about it. But hey--as you say, "them's the breaks."

If what you got from my post was "other people are smarter than you" than maybe the problem is that you feel threatened by people who like Shakespeare. Just a thought--since that wasn't at all what I was saying.

Well how am I supposed to take a statement that my opinion on Shakespeare is not equally valid?

I'm not stating an opinion on the importance or quality of the works, I'm simply saying that reading them isn't particularly enjoyable for me. Why would that opinion be any less valid than that of anyone else? I get your point that people who analyze the nuances and impacts etc. would be more apt to enjoy it, but that's not my point at all. I enjoy reading legal treatises because of the different views and approaches to legal thought, but I wouldn't say that someone who doesn't have an interest in that knowledge has a lesser opinion on whether or not they are enjoyable to read.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by valo403

I've read at least 4 works, and I f'in hate Shakespeare. Just because something has been deemed to be important doesn't mean we all have to enjoy reading it.

Same, although Shakespeare was alright when compared to the torture that was Chaucer.

I still have the line "Hoo yee quoth the knight" in my head and remember thinking, seriously? WDF? Why are they making us read this?