Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There's been a few suggestions made throughout the thread.

I think more Orwell would be a good start.

My reading base is very limited though. Perhaps more modern British authors?

In addition to the typical classics I'd add Tolkien, Bernard Cornwell, George Orwell, and, hell, maybe even a little G.R.R. Martin for final year 16 year olds.

By all means, teach Shakespeare, Of Mice and Men, The Crucible, etc. But lets kids study stuff that they'll actually enjoy too. Sharpe, Saxon Stories, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones...Let kids pick a novel of their choice to study and critique.

 Palindrome wrote:

The UK is comprised of 4 distinct national groups which are further subdivided along preexisting or even imported cultural lines,

Every nation has its subdivisions, some of those boundaries are as strong as those in the UK. The states of the US have thier own cultural identities, there is also a generalised US culture as well.

 Palindrome wrote:

how on earth can you claim that there is a single unifying culture that all these groups can claim as their own?

Because its true.
A good example would be the Monarchy, it clearly ticks the British box as monarchism is prevalent throughout all component territories of the UK, even parts of Northern Ireland, and embodies the Treaty of Union, and it would be beyond dumb to say there is no cultural influence going on.

 Palindrome wrote:

In addition to that how can you claim that culture can be taught? You can teach a stereotypical parody of what is deemed to be 'culture' but that is all it will ever be.

Culture is always taught, its taught through particicipation and/or by rote. This has always been true, from cavemen to today's society.
People learn to be a good Briton/Frenchman/American/Japanese etc etc
Culture is a learning experience, its not a random chaotic mash. You can tell the effects when one devolves into the other.

 Palindrome wrote:

What would be the point of doing a line by line refutation of your posts?

For a start you haven't refuted any single line of any of my posts, just handwaved it off as Shadow Captain Edithae, and likely others have observed.

Also many of your points were already refuted a priori. You called my examples of British culture 'painfully generic' as if thisd was a point in your favour, when I warned you on an earlier post that triteness was symptomic of all attempts to define culture British or otherwise. You also neatly ignored the flat fact that you cant define culture, British or otherwise and can't use that as an excuse to dream up a myth that British culture doesn't exist based on the universal lack of definability of culture. Yet you still tried to put that on with your next reply.

The point of you actually trying to read through and refute my posts is that it would include reading them. Your points have already been anticipated and refuted before you made them and yet you try to make them anyway, without any attempt to rebuff the logic that refuted them to begin with. This means you either aren't actually reading the posts you are claiming to have refuted as 'bollocks'; or you simply fail to understand what you are talking about, both of which are firm evidence of brainwashing.

So I have been wondering if you really could actually try to argue the issues, because so far you have made no actual intellectual attempt to rationalise a point of view, and to be both politically vocal and unthinking is generally not good.
However I think its time to call off the search. Palindrome, I should feel a little sorry for you, and go easy on you for here on in. Perhaps you are really just a victim, and you don't know any better than to spout the same easily refutable BS because you have been too thoroughly indoctrinated to understand anything else. I think someone really did a number on you.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
In addition to the typical classics I'd add Tolkien, Bernard Cornwell, George Orwell, and, hell, maybe even a little G.R.R. Martin for final year 16 year olds.

By all means, teach Shakespeare, Of Mice and Men, The Crucible, etc. But lets kids study stuff that they'll actually enjoy too. Sharpe, Saxon Stories, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones...Let kids pick a novel of their choice to study and critique.

HG Wells
Jules Verne
James Clavell
Frank Herbert
Larry McMurtry

 Orlanth wrote:

For a start you haven't refuted any single line of any of my posts,

I didn't need to refute them in detail, I refuted them all with a simple sentence, even ones you haven't posted yet, as your basic premise is fatally flawed.

You would have more mileage with teaching a set of values, real or aspirational, rather than stuff you would find emblazoned on a tea towel.

Let kids pick a novel of their choice to study and critique.

No. God no. Outside projects sure, but for classroom work that would be terrible for at least two reasons: creating a curriculum around something so random would be so vague as to be useless and because kids have gak taste/limited experience.

 Ahtman wrote:

Let kids pick a novel of their choice to study and critique.

No. God no. Outside projects sure, but for classroom work that would be terrible for at least two reasons: creating a curriculum around something so random would be so vague as to be useless and because kids have gak taste/limited experience.

Oh you can do it- the trick is to limit them to a set of thematically similar novels, and have them discuss them in reading groups. Any time a teacher offers you a 'choice', all your options are actually good choices.

I remember quite regularly doing 'book reviews' of books that I had chosen all throughout school as part of my coursework. They were basically short essays about the books. The teacher basically had a veto, and would pick one from the school library for the utterly hopeless / disinterested.

Then in 6th year, our 'Specialist Study' book could be on literally anything we wanted. And that was a far more in depth essay. I remember picking 'The Lord of the Rings.'

That was very quickly revised to. 'The Fellowship of the Ring' for some reason...

 Ahtman wrote:

Let kids pick a novel of their choice to study and critique.

No. God no. Outside projects sure, but for classroom work that would be terrible for at least two reasons: creating a curriculum around something so random would be so vague as to be useless and because kids have gak taste/limited experience.

I thought we were discussing what would amount to outside projects?

A book report would be an outside project.

 Ahtman wrote:

Let kids pick a novel of their choice to study and critique.

No. God no. Outside projects sure, but for classroom work that would be terrible for at least two reasons: creating a curriculum around something so random would be so vague as to be useless and because kids have gak taste/limited experience.

I meant only as a small part of the exam - worth only a smaller % of an exam's marks. E.g. There are X number of questions on the paper. The first few are all about the typical English literature, Shakespeare etc.

But the last question is like a case study - put into practice your skills (analysis, comprehension, inference, knowledge, awareness and understanding of literary themes) by critiquing a text of your choice (arranged beforehand with your teacher? You pick a book, and your teacher approves it if he/she decides its valid - hopefully filtering out dross like Twilight). At the very least, there ought to be an approved reading list

The idea would be to encourage kids to go and pick a book of their choice (though supervised by their teacher), and they read it, study it, enjoy it and get rewarded for being enthusiastic about literature by getting the chance to write about a book that they enjoyed and are enthusiastic about, as opposed to all the books that they were compelled to read and probably wouldn't have if it was up to them.

Its a chance for kids, after ploughing throw all the questions on compulsory books like Shakespeare etc, to write about something that they enjoy , and would require them to put their skills into practice without their hand being held by their teacher.

Tolkien, Jules Verne, HG Wells, George RR Martin, George Orwell, Bernard Cornwell, Conn Igguldem, JK Rowling etc.


I did well in English myself - I got an A in Eng. Literature and a B in Eng. Language. I've been an enthusiastic reader since primary school (about the age of 10 I became obsessed with reading). But MY GOD did I find GCSE English boring. We did Shakespeare (The Merchant of Venice, Romeo and Juliet), The Crucible, Lord of the Flies (the most interesting, but very depressing ), and poetrey (Seamus Heaney ).

But at the same time, I was reading thinks like Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter and I was loving it. Hell, I was once reported to the English Dep. Head and interrogated. I'd written a 10+ page essay and analysis of The Last Legion (Valerio Massimo Manfredi). Apparently, it was so good and so in depth that she thought my parents had written it. (this was like Year 9 though, not GCSE)

Let kids pick a book that they enjoy, even if its just for a small part of the exam. It'll make a big difference.

At the very least, there ought to be an expanded reading list, from which kids can pick one of their choice as one of the X number of books they must study.


Edit: this would probably work better as a component of Coursework, rather than an exam.

I thought you meant a more laissez faire approach where the students could pick any book they wanted, as opposed to a book from a short list. Excluding some private schools most teachers can't supervise 24 students reading 24 separate books and give meaningful feedback.

Using one student that did will doesn't really make a good metric either when setting policy for a school district let alone State or National guides. I read like mad in school but I'm not sure expecting every student to read three or four books a week outside of class work would be a good idea. For those that do good on em, but it isn't the norm.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I never said anyone one way or the other about teaching British Culture. I simply agree that one exists. You have been asserting that it doesn't, which is demonstrably false.

I don't think there is a unified British culture, there are cultural traits or features that we see as British which are defied by example (e.g. modesty and self-deprecation)
and cases where what is solidly "British" in one area is alien in another or completely absorbed in a separate culture. For example, cricket is endemic in England, nearly unknown in Scotland and fanatically played in Pakistan and India.

Indian food is a staple of modern British restaurant scene but nearly unknown in the home except for Anglo-Indian families.

text removed.

Reds8n

 Compel wrote:
Then in 6th year, our 'Specialist Study' book could be on literally anything we wanted. And that was a far more in depth essay. I remember picking 'The Lord of the Rings.'

That was very quickly revised to. 'The Fellowship of the Ring' for some reason...

Imagine the look on your teachers face if you'd chosen A Song Of Ice And Fire, or The Wheel Of Time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
I thought you meant a more laissez faire approach where the students could pick any book they wanted, as opposed to a book from a short list. Excluding some private schools most teachers can't supervise 24 students reading 24 separate books and give meaningful feedback.

No I was thinking of letting kids pick what they liked, with the teacher vetoing stupid choices. The onus would be on how the students' ability to comprehend a book and present their analysis in an essay, to an examiner/teacher who may not be familiar with it themselves. So its less of a box ticking exercise, and its more subjective.

If thats unpractical, and too much for one teacher to manage then at least provide kids with an approved Reading List from which they can choose; and it may work better as a Coursework component rather than as an exam question.

Using one student that did will doesn't really make a good metric either when setting policy for a school district let alone State or National guides. I read like mad in school but I'm not sure expecting every student to read three or four books a week outside of class work would be a good idea. For those that do good on em, but it isn't the norm.

text removed.

Reds8n

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
If thats unpractical, and too much for one teacher to manage then at least provide kids with an approved Reading List from which they can choose

You have 6 classes a day with 20-24 students in each class, so it would be a bit unwieldy to allow all of them free reign. The reading list isn't designed to disenfranchise students, at least, not purposefully.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I never said anyone one way or the other about teaching British Culture. I simply agree that one exists. You have been asserting that it doesn't, which is demonstrably false.

I don't think there is a unified British culture, there are cultural traits or features that we see as British which are defied by example (e.g. modesty and self-deprecation)
and cases where what is solidly "British" in one area is alien in another or completely absorbed in a separate culture. For example, cricket is endemic in England, nearly unknown in Scotland and fanatically played in Pakistan and India.

Indian food is a staple of modern British restaurant scene but nearly unknown in the home except for Anglo-Indian families.

You definitely would have a few sub-cultures, but they'd all qualify as british. And the common threads are what can be called British Culture.

The same with any larger culture really, it will invariably have smaller cultural sub-groups but they are all still the same culture. Just slight variations on it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

The same with any larger culture really, it will invariably have smaller cultural sub-groups but they are all still the same culture. Just slight variations on it.

That's the point really, those variations can be as large within countries as without. The average Englishman, Scotsman, Australian or Canadian probably has about as much in common with each other as they are different, yet the last two aren't counted as British. There is no such thing as a unified whole, even if some people have issues understanding this.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
In addition to the typical classics I'd add Tolkien, Bernard Cornwell, George Orwell, and, hell, maybe even a little G.R.R. Martin for final year 16 year olds.

By all means, teach Shakespeare, Of Mice and Men, The Crucible, etc. But lets kids study stuff that they'll actually enjoy too. Sharpe, Saxon Stories, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones...Let kids pick a novel of their choice to study and critique.

I'm sorry but Tolkien intentionally used archaic language and is far too descriptive in his writing for it to be worthwhile. In an English class you get a book the teachers feel they can teach to an exam standard which involves being able to memorise passages of the novels and the themes which fit into these: simply while LoTR is worth the read it is too unwiedly to be taught in a classroom at any level other than A-Level/Advanced Highers

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
In addition to the typical classics I'd add Tolkien, Bernard Cornwell, George Orwell, and, hell, maybe even a little G.R.R. Martin for final year 16 year olds.

By all means, teach Shakespeare, Of Mice and Men, The Crucible, etc. But lets kids study stuff that they'll actually enjoy too. Sharpe, Saxon Stories, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones...Let kids pick a novel of their choice to study and critique.

I'm sorry but Tolkien intentionally used archaic language and is far too descriptive in his writing for it to be worthwhile. In an English class you get a book the teachers feel they can teach to an exam standard which involves being able to memorise passages of the novels and the themes which fit into these: simply while LoTR is worth the read it is too unwiedly to be taught in a classroom at any level other than A-Level/Advanced Highers

Heh. The Hobbit then.

I wasn't suggesting that it be taught in class, only that pupils can choose to study books like LOTR outside of school, as part of a Coursework assignment, or as a small part of their exam (a brief 1-2 page essay giving a synopsis and analysis of the themes etc).

Also, I find it odd that you think Tolkien deliberately used archaic language. He began writing the Middle Earth series nearly a century ago, in WW1 or thereabouts. Are you sure that what you regard as archaic language today was also archaic in the early 20th century?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
In addition to the typical classics I'd add Tolkien, Bernard Cornwell, George Orwell, and, hell, maybe even a little G.R.R. Martin for final year 16 year olds.

By all means, teach Shakespeare, Of Mice and Men, The Crucible, etc. But lets kids study stuff that they'll actually enjoy too. Sharpe, Saxon Stories, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones...Let kids pick a novel of their choice to study and critique.

I'm sorry but Tolkien intentionally used archaic language and is far too descriptive in his writing for it to be worthwhile. In an English class you get a book the teachers feel they can teach to an exam standard which involves being able to memorise passages of the novels and the themes which fit into these: simply while LoTR is worth the read it is too unwiedly to be taught in a classroom at any level other than A-Level/Advanced Highers

Heh. The Hobbit then.

I wasn't suggesting that it be taught in class, only that pupils can choose to study books like LOTR outside of school, as part of a Coursework assignment, or as a small part of their exam (a brief 1-2 page essay giving a synopsis and analysis of the themes etc).

Also, I find it odd that you think Tolkien deliberately used archaic language. He began writing the Middle Earth series nearly a century ago, in WW1 or thereabouts. Are you sure that what you regard as archaic language today was also archaic in the early 20th century?

'Archaic language' is not a problem, it was just proper 'High English' (not a technical term) as used by some academics in the 1950's.
school curricula are expected to include 19th century literature and Shakespeare.

Lord of the Rings is fine, and there is much to learn from Tolkiens choice of vocabulary, the tempo of his works etc. Its very poetic and magically descriptive.

If it is not easily accessible, then I can hand on heart say that any English Literature curricula that makes Tolkien accessible though teaching are lessons worth paying taxes for. I had not problem understanding Lord of the Rings when it was read to me in English class at the age of eleven, it was also a formative experience.

Besides 'proper English Langauge starts with old English translation, or even studies of Latin. Both help understand the roots of the English language. at school we studied Chaucer, which while English is essentially a foreign language, at University level the first term is transtionally studying the Anglo Saxon myths which is like Chaucer but several steps more primordial.
I dont regret being taught to translate the prologue for the Knights Tale, even if nobody speaks like that anymore.

Still The Hobbit is also a good study text in its own right.

I had a friend who studied LotR for a psychology essay.

 purplefood wrote:
I had a friend who studied LotR for a psychology essay.

I am curious as to what inferences he drew from the work.

I read Lord of the Rings at the age of 12, and found it far more accessible than Shakespeare.

If kids are expected to study Shakespeare then I don't see how Tolkien can be considered too advanced.

That probably has more to do with length than readability. Any one book in LotR is a long read and classes have limited time. There's a reason books like Lord of the Flies and Shakespeare are so perfect for schools. They're just the right length for a quick brief work. Longer books often appear in reading classes but there's rarely room for more than two or three.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I read Lord of the Rings at the age of 12, and found it far more accessible than Shakespeare.

If kids are expected to study Shakespeare then I don't see how Tolkien can be considered too advanced.

I cant see anything wrong with this statement. It's sad that some cant understand Lord of the Rings at 16, or older, even though others could as pre-teens.
I wonder if this is also a symptom of dumbing down, i claim no theory as yet, but from university lecturers I spoke to there is a clearly detectable pattern of declining literacy in the UK even at degree level. I am not too surprised that Tolkien is not considered accessible, but I am disappointed.

Shakespeare was barely accessible to me, and still much is not, to the extent that I can understand it but not enjoy it. So I can imagine how Lord if the Rings could become a chore, but what a terrible curse that would be.

In fairness Shakespeare is pretty easy to read if you get the references.

 purplefood wrote:
In fairness Shakespeare is pretty easy to read if you get the references.

True but that to me meant stopping and cross referencing then remembering afterwards, so it was understandable, but not enjoyable at any level. That's how I see it anyway YMMV.

 Orlanth wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
In fairness Shakespeare is pretty easy to read if you get the references.

True but that to me meant stopping and cross referencing then remembering afterwards, so it was understandable, but not enjoyable at any level. That's how I see it anyway YMMV.

That makes sense. Still Shakespeare has the best if you're looking for your mum jokes, fat jokes and dick jokes.

Sometimes I wish cultural theory wasn't a major component of my degree. Were that the case, these threads would give me less of a headache as I watch people who don't understand the meaning of the word 'culture' lecture others on culture. Culture at its most base level is signification by means of lived practice, encompassing everything from the visual arts and music to cuisine, idioms, habits and attitudes. Basically any form of lived practice in which meaning is made for it's own sake (the meaning, not the action, though actions may be undertaken for the specific purpose of creating meaning) is a cultural act. Incidentally, there IS a discretely British culture. Stop being a silly ideologue.

Right. Carry on.