tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post4714294239984668324..comments2023-10-17T05:19:48.148-04:00Comments on Rose-coloured: Educationally speakingRebecca Rosenblumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10859985178895250412noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post-83560464210108838292007-04-26T21:42:00.000-04:002007-04-26T21:42:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Patrick McEvoy-Halstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02091303562091479924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post-29273688483376482432007-04-26T13:04:00.000-04:002007-04-26T13:04:00.000-04:00I guess it depends what you define as reading RR. ...I guess it depends what you define as reading RR. I know people who would never, and I mean "never", touch a novel, but read through complex business books or consume three newspapers and two weeklies every day. <BR/>My Dad doesn't read, but watches countless documentaries and listens to audiobooks. <BR/>What about someone who has read the minutes & debates of Canadian/British/Australian Parliament <BR/>Are such people not well read? <BR/><BR/>I'm not a lit-major,but I think "reading" is a matter of challenging one's self. I do think you need to mix it up. I assume reading the 1-3 of all "Top 100" list of different fiction types (i.e. novel,business,non-fiction, short story collections etc.) would probably do your mind some good.<BR/><BR/>As far as the quality issue. There is no accounting for taste, I think there are some constants in "badness"; grammar,spelling and basic story structure and so forth. I think certain books can be personally "bad" for an individual in the not expanding your horizon sort of way(Like always reading the same genre from the cradle to the grave).<BR/><BR/>That's my two cents as a non-lit major.Ransermohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09296498677538842772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post-60912877632468869992007-04-25T21:54:00.000-04:002007-04-25T21:54:00.000-04:00Oh my! For clarity's sake:"I meant 'you' as that p...Oh my! For clarity's sake:<BR/><BR/>"I meant 'you' as that person who doesn't think there is a book for them (certainly not you RR!!). Goodness gracious I don't communicate well. I am very sure I want to be your friend."<BR/><BR/>And very well put Ms. Merchant!Kerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13169971552802919035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post-36911106282180380572007-04-25T21:37:00.000-04:002007-04-25T21:37:00.000-04:00I would have to agree with Kerry. My "surveys" of ...I would have to agree with Kerry. My "surveys" of English and American lit classes hurt my biceps because the books were so heavy to carry around. Undergrad wasn't about studying for me. It was about making friends and having fun. I worked enough to get my grades and keep my scholarship, but I think I read fewer books for pleasure in those four years than ever else in my life. I think you're either born with a love for reading books or you're not. Or you cultivate it at a very young age. And it doesn't matter what you read. Who are we to judge what book is a "worthier" read than another? That's the chocolate-vanilla debate, isn't it? I think we can sit on our high horses in grad school, because unlike undergrad, which was sort of a "thing you have to do" to get a "good" job (har har), we *choose* to put our good jobs on hold (or at least I did) to pursue something we really want. And it makes our perspective on undergrad life all skewed because all of a sudden, we're the cream of the crop and we can't stand to see the thing we love to do best be desecrated in such an unholy fashion!<BR/><BR/>This is my two cents' worth. Good discussion!The Chapati Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08916089544395886858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post-37817800313468316092007-04-25T21:17:00.000-04:002007-04-25T21:17:00.000-04:00I have never met a smart person who didn't read. A...I have never met a smart person who didn't read. And I don't care what they read: nonfiction, manga, cookbooks, sci-fi, <I>The Lovely Bones</I>, true crime, chick lit, Archie comics, erotica? I don't care. Goodness comes in books, and there is a book for everyone. If you don't know that, I'm not so sure that I want to be your friend. <BR/><BR/>When I was in undergrad, I did not so love learning the way I do today. I am sure I wrote essays that made TAs want to gouge out their tonsils, but life was fuller then (of ridiculous things but) and I remember writing papers all night the night before. I was not sufficiently engaged with what I had to learn (do I remember anything from my 17th Century Lit course? no). <BR/><BR/>But it set me on a path. Cod-liver oil paved the way for tastier things. It's process I think. We won't find much of an end-result for ages, but one will come around I promise. Some people are in university who should be doing something else they like better, but others are just learning how to start learning. You're helping them. <BR/><BR/>Congratulations on being finished. Hope you have plenty of time for day-dreaming now.<BR/><BR/>xoxKerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13169971552802919035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5403642865904161814.post-61224963551901972122007-04-25T14:39:00.000-04:002007-04-25T14:39:00.000-04:00my problem with most reading is that it's one way:...my problem with most reading is that it's one way: the reader forever taking in an extended lecture. conversation is better, maybe. <BR/><BR/>number of people 22 and under that read stuff on the net has got to be very high, me thinks. lots of readers out there amongst the youngins.<BR/><BR/>despite knowing so many authors who really are so very, very, brave, i still kind of think of them as a bunch of reclusive scaredy cats: people the well-adjusted high fiver could teach bunches to.<BR/><BR/>i've been in undergrad liberal arts courses where there was no doubt most were having a blast and learning and teaching bunches to one another. teacher's approach is most important: does s/he know his/her students have bunches to teach him/her as well? but also important is material: for example, nothing written in the 18th century is worth reading--any emotionally healthy person knows this. (one 18th-century lit prof taught a course called "18th-century now," a course which featured contemporary texts which dealt with the 18th-century in some way. it was easily his most successful course.)<BR/><BR/>it's about the student, not about the curriculum. so long as you're growin, it's okay if you didn't read much of the book. <BR/><BR/>reading too little is terrible if it keeps you narrow. Reading too much is terrible if you're already where you ought to be.Patrick McEvoy-Halstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02091303562091479924noreply@blogger.com