That's what I thought the entire time I was reading Manga Shakespeare. I love the concept, but I just couldn't handle it. The first few pages give a guide to show us who the characters are, but the guide is in color. The rest of the book? Black and white. Thanks for being so helpful. It essentially took me more than half of the novel to keep a few of the characters straight (of course, with some of the illustrations, not even I could keep them straight--kudos to those drawing it for keeping that aspect of Shakespeare's works). I think reading this is analogous to watching the awful 1996 movie in that it's just so difficult to follow. And a bit ridiculous at times (then again, when isn't Billy completely over the top?).
Like I said, I love the concept. I think being able to visualize Shakespeare's works is much easier than having to try to set everyone up yourself. I just didn't like the execution. This doesn't make it less confusing, it makes it more confusing. Maybe you disagree, but I think it's much easier to follow when there are names and text side-by-side, and there's never a doubt who's who because of it. The lack of color is also disappointing for two reasons: we're teased in the front by being shown amazing pictures, then 4 pages in it's all black and white. On top of that, black blood just doesn't have any feeling to it. Who cares if there's a pool of black blood on the ground? It doesn't even look like blood. Why should I feel bad?
I really don't think I'd ever use this in class, at least not without going through it a couple more times. I'd certainly have to work hard to convince myself to use it. I'm in Shakespeare right now and have no problems reading the majority of the stuff, so if I'm confused by this, I don't think that will benefit my future students.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
The Hunger Games
Another gushing post? Maybe. What can I say? I loved the book. A quick rundown:
- The Hunger Games shows a society that, like Feed, isn't all that far-fetched. Granted, I don't think we'll get to that point, it's still conceivable that it could happen. (Something to think about: how are the Hunger Games similar to the Olympics?)
- You had to know Peeta was really in love with Catnip, despite his protestations near the middle of the novel.
- There's alot of fodder for discussion from this novel, including discussion about many different aspects of life--among them:
- (nested bullets? YUP!) Autocracies, dictatorships, etc.
- Upper/middle/lower classes and their roles and histories
- Hunting/gathering societies
- Mining towns
- Whether it's a good idea to have different sectors responsible for certain things, and how that relates to the history of the U.S. (steel belt, sun belt, wheat belt, etc.) and the U.S. today
- The pros and cons of an autocratic nation
- Rebellion and/or standing up for your rights and the rights of all people
- Friendship and love
- Connections to "The Lottery"
- Other connections to literature and pop culture (Twisted Metal games, the movie Gamer, etc.)
- ...and I'm out of ideas for the moment, but that's a pretty solid list to start out with. Like I said: there's alot
- Catnip, maybe less than halfway through the book, reminds us about rebelling against the Capitol, making it clear that, at the end, she'll be left making an agreement with someone that they won't kill each other. I expected that. But I also expected the Capitol to let the muttations eat them.
- We've only finished one book out of three; in the next one it'll be interesting to see how things work out with Gale, and I have no idea what to expect form the final book. The fact that it's a trilogy gives even more opportunities for discussion whether or not the other books are ever read in class.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
PC World
"When people of any age are too afraid of saying, doing, or reading someting wrong, the tendency is to...withdraw int o a frozen state of immobility; then learning dies. Fearful silence...would seem to do more harm than any speech of text I can imagine!"
Let me start by saying that I can't deny the fact that Black students might feel uncomfortable in the classroom when Huckleberry Finn is read aloud with no omissions. And perhaps they might be upset by it if a White person (or a non-Black person) is the one who utters the word. However, if the word "nigger" is only to be used by Black people, and is never meant to be said by anyone else, why does the same group that promotes the non-use of the word proliferate it? Movies, music, slam poetry, stand-up comedy, and a whole host of other mediums highlight it. Some 4:00 songs probably use it as much as Huck Finn. Some might say, Well it's their word now, so why shouldn't they use it? My answer is that if a word is taboo, it better be taboo to everyone. You can't make music that you know will be purchased and played primarily by Whites, say nigger 300 times on an album, and expect them never to use the phrase even if they are only singing the words written by a Black person.
I am absolutely opposed to anything about the political correctness movement, regardless of whether it has anything to do with race. I don't think people should be out shouting words that will likely be offensive to people, but it's in the book. It's meant to be read. It can't be changed, even when it is. Mental retardation is a legitimate disease diagnosis, just as people are handicapped. When we become "older Pennsylvanians" maybe we'll know more "differently abled" people because something has left them "with an intellectual disability." Senior citizens will tell you that most kids these days have plenty of intellectual disabilities, and many of them are differently abled, but that doesn't necessarily make them mentally retarded or handicapped. (This reads like a rant, but trust me that it's typed in complete calm.)
Though some of you may disagree, it is our job as English teachers to fix misconceptions about euphemism and encourage precise language. "African-American" does not mean Black. Plenty of Whites are African-American. "People of color" does not mean non-White, nor does it mean Black. I like to think I have plenty of color, thanks. I've met lots of art majors, too, and they're very differently abled; I can't even draw a tree and they're drawing waterfalls surrounding by forests. I think my point has been made. For issues regarding legitimately offensive language, it is preferable to use something in its place if the use of an offensive word will incite problems; similarly, it's important to teach why those words are deemed offensive. I don't think I've yet had a teacher who would say "nigger," regardless of what we're reading (Huck Finn, Light in August, etc.), and I don't know if I'd be doing any kind of service by reading it 213 times. However, it would certainly be said and discussed in the classroom. And I'd love someone (besides an older Pennsylvanian like Bill Cosby) to truly speak out against the use of the word by Blacks if they expect everyone else not to use it. If it's an oppressive, hateful word, why use it amongst yourselves? I know there's the who co-opting argument, but I don't feel like it holds any water whatsoever.
"Those who rock the boat or question the status quo are viewed as trouble-makers. Being 'good' teachers--like being good students--often means accepting the authority of others, not resisting or challenging it."
Let me start by saying that I can't deny the fact that Black students might feel uncomfortable in the classroom when Huckleberry Finn is read aloud with no omissions. And perhaps they might be upset by it if a White person (or a non-Black person) is the one who utters the word. However, if the word "nigger" is only to be used by Black people, and is never meant to be said by anyone else, why does the same group that promotes the non-use of the word proliferate it? Movies, music, slam poetry, stand-up comedy, and a whole host of other mediums highlight it. Some 4:00 songs probably use it as much as Huck Finn. Some might say, Well it's their word now, so why shouldn't they use it? My answer is that if a word is taboo, it better be taboo to everyone. You can't make music that you know will be purchased and played primarily by Whites, say nigger 300 times on an album, and expect them never to use the phrase even if they are only singing the words written by a Black person.
I am absolutely opposed to anything about the political correctness movement, regardless of whether it has anything to do with race. I don't think people should be out shouting words that will likely be offensive to people, but it's in the book. It's meant to be read. It can't be changed, even when it is. Mental retardation is a legitimate disease diagnosis, just as people are handicapped. When we become "older Pennsylvanians" maybe we'll know more "differently abled" people because something has left them "with an intellectual disability." Senior citizens will tell you that most kids these days have plenty of intellectual disabilities, and many of them are differently abled, but that doesn't necessarily make them mentally retarded or handicapped. (This reads like a rant, but trust me that it's typed in complete calm.)
Though some of you may disagree, it is our job as English teachers to fix misconceptions about euphemism and encourage precise language. "African-American" does not mean Black. Plenty of Whites are African-American. "People of color" does not mean non-White, nor does it mean Black. I like to think I have plenty of color, thanks. I've met lots of art majors, too, and they're very differently abled; I can't even draw a tree and they're drawing waterfalls surrounding by forests. I think my point has been made. For issues regarding legitimately offensive language, it is preferable to use something in its place if the use of an offensive word will incite problems; similarly, it's important to teach why those words are deemed offensive. I don't think I've yet had a teacher who would say "nigger," regardless of what we're reading (Huck Finn, Light in August, etc.), and I don't know if I'd be doing any kind of service by reading it 213 times. However, it would certainly be said and discussed in the classroom. And I'd love someone (besides an older Pennsylvanian like Bill Cosby) to truly speak out against the use of the word by Blacks if they expect everyone else not to use it. If it's an oppressive, hateful word, why use it amongst yourselves? I know there's the who co-opting argument, but I don't feel like it holds any water whatsoever.
"Those who rock the boat or question the status quo are viewed as trouble-makers. Being 'good' teachers--like being good students--often means accepting the authority of others, not resisting or challenging it."
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
I think Wink's article is mostly important not for transforming students, but for transforming teachers (as she sort of implied). As teachers, it's our job to not only teach students, but to let them know why we're teaching what we are if they can't see the connection. Now, there's some leeway in that: "Why are reading this?" is a question that's important, but I think we need to use discretion in answering it. We've seen that sentiment in this class, specifically during the first couple of weeks when discussing why we teach certain works and don't teach others. It's important for us to have reasons for what we're teaching, even if they're as simple as "I like the themes," "It's a different genre than anything we've read," or "It's required by the district." Sometimes, though, it might be more beneficial to flip the question and see what the students' responses are--if not immediately, then when you're finished teaching whatever it is. Ask the students why we read what we did, or why we just did a grammar unit, etc. Those are good questions, and they show that students are (or aren't) making connections. I know I ask/ed myself "Why are we reading this?" after just about anything in Brit Lit 1 and 2 and American 1. A lot of that stuff is (in my humble opinion) beyond terrible, and even more beyond irrelevant. Teaching why we're teaching is a beneficial aspect to combating apathy, considering there are plenty of works you can assign that promote apathy at its greatest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)