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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 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.

It's not to do with dumbing down of education. It is all to do with changes in how young people choose to spend their time, in part due to changes in technology.

Children who spend all their time on twitter and facebook and playing some video games (not all, mind you) will not build the vocabulary required to be able to understand Tolkein. This could be for a number of reasons, potentially due to having parents who are not interested in reading and so they don't read to their child or there isn't a variety of reading material in the house.

In such an environment the drive to read, and especially reading for pleasure, can sometimes not take root.

Children who, on the other hand, have parents who enjoy reading and so read to their child and had a wider range of texts available in the house will have a much better chance of instilling that love of reading.

During my year in which I worked in a secondary school library I lost count of how many year 7 (so 11 to 12 years old) children could basically not read. This is not entirely the fault of the primary school as no matter how much they try to get the child to read, if that isn't enforced or encouraged at home then the child will not make progress.

Well, I think young people would find LotR a little more enjoyable than Shakespeare.

And people who don't have the vocabulary to understand LotR certainly aren't going to understand Shakespeare, or any of Jane Austin's writing.

I did The Hobbit at prep school.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I did The Hobbit at prep school.

Know to my twisted mind that sounds like something you don't want to boast about!

Re dumbing down there's a definite changed in attitude from current generations in my experience. More confident but less knowledgable as they can pick up facts and guides online. They make the right noises but are less willing to ask questions as they know they can get the answer to on the Internet (then finally ask when Google lets them down!). Just my experience of some assistants (not all) over the last decade.

Of course my peers and Senior Directors are not that sharp either. In the last few months I have had to personally explain meanings for aquiese and cognicence among others. My office is regularly invaded by other managers wanting to know spellings, meanings and context of words. I do now put "long" words into emails on purpose to fish for "I had to looking that up" replies - it's good to know who the thickies are (and avoid ).

But then this is the construction industry; I got a C for English (D for Lit) so was never what you would call the sharpest knife in the bag.

Do you mean "acquiesce" and "cognisance"?

Shakespeare is meant to be seen, not read. Hated English at school ("analysing" text for gak that isn't there is not my idea of fun) despite reading literally hundreds of books through my school life (I got my mum to sign the form to say I could go into the adult section of the town library when I was about 8 and for several years I used to take out and read 8 books a week, added to all the books that I or my parents owned - lots of sci fi and fantasy).

Even now I read a lot - have about 1000 books on my kindle and have read about 500 (many more than once). Not read the rest as I made the mistake of downloading a large pack of books not realising they were some kind of furry fiction

There is a reasonably wide rabge of books on the old reading list - the problem is most teachers pick the same handful of gak books to teach as their workload means it is hard to branch out.

Shakespeare reads fine once you need to get used to the flow of the language and the stage directional presentation. Realistically, if you are to study the text it cannot be done by going to plays again and again, you have to have it at hand for reading.

 Orlanth wrote:


Most cultural markers are gastronomic, e.g. stars and stripes and blueberry pie, not that most Americans actually eat blueberry pie.

I certainly eat blueberry pie. Do a lot of Americans not actually eat it or something? Apple pie is usually thought of more iconic, I think, but blueberry pie is the superior dessert in my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:
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.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt that way about this thread.

 notprop wrote:
Of course my peers and Senior Directors are not that sharp either. In the last few months I have had to personally explain meanings for aquiese and cognicence among others.

I learned that word from Pirates of the Caribbean. True story.

It honestly doesn't matter where you learn words from. What matters most, is that an individual takes an active interest in understanding their own language by seeking out the meaning of words they encounter but are unfamiliar with, thereby improving their vocabulary. Schools can instill at least a basic understanding of English etc, but if an individual doesn't care that they don't understand certain words, then they're hopeless.

If I ever see a word online that I don't understand, I'll google it. And I often look up the definition of words and phrases that I use but am unsure about, to make sure I'm using them correctly.

 Hordini wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
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.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt that way about this thread.

I can see where Albatross is coming from a culture is something that just is, and need not of itself generate argument.

However culture is also a political battleground and a political weapon, it is not facetious to want to be proactively aware over the issues of politicised culture.
After all a culture can also be imposed, molded and or destroyed, by military or political action.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Shakespeare reads fine once you need to get used to the flow of the language and the stage directional presentation. Realistically, if you are to study the text it cannot be done by going to plays again and again, you have to have it at hand for reading.

So the obvious solution is to watch the plays, but then analyze the script.

The script alone isn't going to be worth much.

Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich meinen Browning!

 Orlanth wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
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.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt that way about this thread.

I can see where Albatross is coming from a culture is something that just is, and need not of itself generate argument.

However culture is also a political battleground and a political weapon, it is not facetious to want to be proactively aware over the issues of politicised culture.
After all a culture can also be imposed, molded and or destroyed, by military or political action.

Far more common is the process of acculturation, whereby those things I mentioned before (language, custom, art, cuisine etc) meet and interact with each other, eventually creating a 'new' culture. This has been most recently observed within the arena of the new media, which has given rise to a discrete 'internet culture'. See, what tribal left-wing know-nothings in this country always, frustratingly, seem to get wrong is that, yes, British culture has moved on from the days of empire to certain extent - our cultural tastes and attitudes have changed as we absorb new influences (and in turn influence others) but that does NOT mean that there is no longer such a thing as British cullture. The meaning of the term has just changed is all; there's still room for Brunel, Shakespeare, Elgar, the village green, tea, cricket and the concept of fair play, it's just that now, those things have been joined by tikka masala, drum & bass, two-tone, Mr Patel's corner shop, a drunken kebab and the word 'innit'. I personally love modern British culture. Many on the right do, it's not about nostalgia and a desire to return to past glories, it's about not forgetting the value of what went before, whilst still adapting to the changes in our society. That's the problem New Labour had - they pursued modernism for its own sake.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Shakespeare reads fine once you need to get used to the flow of the language and the stage directional presentation. Realistically, if you are to study the text it cannot be done by going to plays again and again, you have to have it at hand for reading.

So the obvious solution is to watch the plays, but then analyze the script.

The script alone isn't going to be worth much.

Certainly the plays are enjoyable in themselves. They were written to be performed, after all.

A Midsummer Night's Dream is a particular favourite of mine. I have seen several productions and also appeared in a school production as Bottom, ha ha ha.

The normal pattern for study is to read the play and discuss it, then see it performed, then read and discuss again. The reading in the classroom is normally a "sit down" performance rather than a dry reading.

 Albatross wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
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.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt that way about this thread.

I can see where Albatross is coming from a culture is something that just is, and need not of itself generate argument.

However culture is also a political battleground and a political weapon, it is not facetious to want to be proactively aware over the issues of politicised culture.
After all a culture can also be imposed, molded and or destroyed, by military or political action.

Far more common is the process of acculturation, whereby those things I mentioned before (language, custom, art, cuisine etc) meet and interact with each other, eventually creating a 'new' culture. This has been most recently observed within the arena of the new media, which has given rise to a discrete 'internet culture'. See, what tribal left-wing know-nothings in this country always, frustratingly, seem to get wrong is that, yes, British culture has moved on from the days of empire to certain extent - our cultural tastes and attitudes have changed as we absorb new influences (and in turn influence others) but that does NOT mean that there is no longer such a thing as British cullture. The meaning of the term has just changed is all; there's still room for Brunel, Shakespeare, Elgar, the village green, tea, cricket and the concept of fair play, it's just that now, those things have been joined by tikka masala, drum & bass, two-tone, Mr Patel's corner shop, a drunken kebab and the word 'innit'. I personally love modern British culture. Many on the right do, it's not about nostalgia and a desire to return to past glories, it's about not forgetting the value of what went before, whilst still adapting to the changes in our society. That's the problem New Labour had - they pursued modernism for its own sake.

Agreed, a culture does naturally evolve, but the process can be steered by unfair means when parts of the extant culture are starved out.
This is why a deliberately imbalanced cultural access in the school curricula is dangerous.
I do not for a moment say that New Labour came around peoples homes with a bat and said 'forget you are British' however by starving certain cultural elements and then allowing a selective development of the culture this is effectively what you get.
Also there is no just concern that British culture is added to by foreign or immigrant influences, only the far right abhor that; its the reduction or removal of other aspects of the culture to create a vacuum for new elements to fill that is concerning.

In any event the evidence is all around us, people taught to believe quite vociferously that there is no such thing as British culture is a symptom of a social decay that has been induced for party political ends. And I beleive it is mirrored by the indoctrination present in much of the schools system and government organisations at a local and national level.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Interesting that Gove focuses particular criticism on Of Mice and Men, a book about inequality and prejudice set in a period of depression and unemployment.

This. Excellent book to be required reading at the moment. I recall reading Fahrenheit 451 in high school too, perhaps that will be scrapped as well.


Will they swap them out for some UK modern classics like 1984 and Brave New World?

Probably not.

Really, endless amounts of Shakespeare on the curriculum are the things that need to be cut, it's no better than medieval soap opera in terms of critical thinking and the prose style used bears no relation to modern usage of English.. some kids have enough trouble with reading regular text without confusing the issue further.

I'm also in favor of scrapping religious education entirely and replacing it with a student's choice of advanced Science - Advanced Biology/ Chemistry/ Physics or Comp. Sci.

It's about time we ended the mandatory tuition of the exact details of the magical wizards that live in the clouds and are nice to you after you die as long as you perform certain pointless rituals and pick the right one. Utter waste of time. If their parents insist on it, they'll get their lessons at church anyway, or they can choose the faith of their choice out of their own free will (how about that!).

PE should be completely overhauled. Scrap competitive sport, change it to teaching fitness classes, cardio/ muscle training etc. A shorter amount of actual workouts as opposed to standing around on a soggy field not doing much. More time spent learning to swim (useful life skill that not everyone learns). Nutritional information, non-preachy, just explaining about RDA's and calorie intake and how to avoid getting fat or how to lose weight.

 scarletsquig wrote:


I'm also in favor of scrapping religious education entirely and replacing it with a student's choice of advanced Science - Advanced Biology/ Chemistry/ Physics or Comp. Sci.

Thats another way to dogmatise the populace. Your wish is already being granted in 'Science Academies' which yield poorer results for their students, even in the Sciences than the faith schools.
In fact the faith schools frequently outperform other state schools.

 scarletsquig wrote:

It's about time we ended the mandatory tuition of the exact details of the magical wizards that live in the clouds and are nice to you after you die as long as you perform certain pointless rituals and pick the right one. Utter waste of time.

When this is given as the excuse to remove RE from the curriculum, you can tell it is being done from a point of ignorance, not a point of enlightenment.

 scarletsquig wrote:

If their parents insist on it, they'll get their lessons at church anyway, or they can choose the faith of their choice out of their own free will (how about that!).

Teaching RE in classes does not remove free will, removing RE might well do so. Allowing for the dogmatisation that can occurs at extremist places of worship, of which the vast majority are mosques, allowing religious education to come solely from those sources is ignorant and dangerous.
Please remember that school curricula demand that at least two religions are covered in RE class in depth. All are covered at an elementary level and atheism is also covered. This is the only fair way to go about things.
In fact the main reason why moslem extremists wanted to subvert the school curriculum in Birmingham was to prevent the schools from countering extremist teaching in the mosques.

 scarletsquig wrote:

PE should be completely overhauled. Scrap competitive sport,

We have seen this. Removing competitive sport is done on the aegis of 'empowerment' because everyone is a winner. That is complete doggerel of course. What is does is give a false sense of entitlement and removes any drive to succeed. Removing healthy competition from schools is a good idea if you want to reduce the next generation to compliant sheep, not so good at providing an education that will strengthen young people for the future.
Please remember that you don't need to be good at sports to succeed in school, but through competition people thrive they can also learn to carry each other.

 scarletsquig wrote:

change it to teaching fitness classes, cardio/ muscle training etc. A shorter amount of actual workouts as opposed to standing around on a soggy field not doing much. More time spent learning to swim (useful life skill that not everyone learns). Nutritional information, non-preachy, just explaining about RDA's and calorie intake and how to avoid getting fat or how to lose weight.

Education is supposed to be preachy, non preachy means you might know better, this is a bad attitude to teachers to adopt as kids don't know better, teachers ought to and this should be the status standing.
Other than that health teaching is useful, but should not replace competitive sport.
Most schools with a quality teaching method will be concerned with nutrition anyway, and it is often taught in domestic science.


Your input to education curricula policy needs thinking through more.

 scarletsquig wrote:
Really, endless amounts of Shakespeare on the curriculum are the things that need to be cut, it's no better than medieval soap opera in terms of critical thinking and the prose style used bears no relation to modern usage of English.. some kids have enough trouble with reading regular text without confusing the issue further.

No arguments here.

I'm also in favor of scrapping religious education entirely and replacing it with a student's choice of advanced Science - Advanced Biology/ Chemistry/ Physics or Comp. Sci.

Or not. Some students have enough trouble with science as it is, forcing them to do more won't help matters.

It's about time we ended the mandatory tuition of the exact details of the magical wizards that live in the clouds and are nice to you after you die as long as you perform certain pointless rituals and pick the right one. Utter waste of time. If their parents insist on it, they'll get their lessons at church anyway, or they can choose the faith of their choice out of their own free will (how about that!).

Or you could view religious education more as a cultural lesson. In general, it's harder to be tolerant towards other people when you don't understand why they do certain things.

PE should be completely overhauled. Scrap competitive sport, change it to teaching fitness classes, cardio/ muscle training etc. A shorter amount of actual workouts as opposed to standing around on a soggy field not doing much. More time spent learning to swim (useful life skill that not everyone learns). Nutritional information, non-preachy, just explaining about RDA's and calorie intake and how to avoid getting fat or how to lose weight.

But fitness training is really boring. Seriously. Nobody would enjoy P.E. lessons if they consisted entirely of workout rather than playing games. As to swimming, my school is lucky enough to have a swimming pool, so everyone did actually learn to swim (or did more swimming if they already could). Finally, I'm sure that nutritional information falls under a mixture of general studies, biology, and P.S.H.E.

P.S.: Can we please not turn this into another religious discussion? It's a sure fire way of getting the thread locked.

You're welcome to your opinion and I won't call it dangerous or hare-brained.

I'm just going by personal experience on what the most objectively worthless pieces of my education were. I scored 100% on my RE GCSE, but it was for the sake of passing a test and completely worthless beyond that.

In a similar fashion, the competitive elements of PE are utterly miserable if you're socially unpopular or not very good at sports. You will have an hour of being crapped on by both your fellow students and the teachers more often than not, it is the exact opposite of motivation for those who aren't any good in the first place.

Might as well bring back the dunce hat for people who fail at maths and make them sit in the corner and be laughed at if competition is seen as a valid method of education, it is the exact equivalent of being that kid who always gets picked last for sports.

At my school we had RMPS not RE to include basic morality and philosophical aspects as well as religious. And when we studied a religion in that class it was a study of that religion to help educate people about that faith not indoctrinate them into it

^ Sounds a lot better, I guess things have changed a bit since I went, or perhaps some schools do it differently? Morality and Philosophy have tangible value, having to go into massive detail on the ceremonies of each one less so.

Yeah, the whole point of current RE/ RS qualifiactions is to build an understanding of religion and traditions. There should never be any attempt at indoctrination/conversion, although I can imagine that this is not always going to be the case. Much of the stuff you learn is why different religions oppose different things, which (with a few exceptions) was basically:
Issue!
Orthodox religion doesn't ever approve.
Middle-of-the-road members generally don't approve but have some flex on issues.
Liberals are fine with it.

There you go, GCSE RE in 4 lines.

ScarletSquig's points on PE are valid. There is no value in playing competitive sports if you just do not care about them. There never will be. Same applies if you are very bad at them or have no interest in that sport. Physical fitness, however, is important, and that is what PE should be about. Not getting barked at in mud as to why you cannot catch a ball. /rant

 scarletsquig wrote:
You're welcome to your opinion and I won't call it dangerous or hare-brained.

Well it wasn't, but point taken.

 scarletsquig wrote:

I'm just going by personal experience on what the most objectively worthless pieces of my education were. I scored 100% on my RE GCSE, but it was for the sake of passing a test and completely worthless beyond that.

Actually that GCSE gave you insights into what millions of people believe. Or at least wit would do when taught properly and retained.
Understanding Judaism and Islam 101 will stand you in good stead when understanding Middle East, its politics and its business opportunities.

More importantly a correct RE curriculum could dispel a lot of the BS surrounding politicised religion.
This is currently happening in northern Ireland. Wheras before schols were sectarian, a balanced curriculum has been forced in the next generation. Its not Atheism that will stop Protestants and Catholics fightsing but a proper understanding of Biblical studies. This is of course simplistic as the religios is as always just an excuse, but at least its one excuse removed.
Likewise a proper study of Islam as 'the reglion of peace' will find that there is a lot of stuff in the Koran glossed over in the extermist mosques. One point of note is how "Allah favours the Jews and will shield them from harm," teach that to a kid and he might second guess when some hook handed fethhead tells him all Jews must die.

Children of Israel! call to mind the favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others. (Surah 2:47 repeated in 2:122)

It goes further than that, you see we need not agree, you can dismiss religion as unture, I can pick one and believe in it.
Hopefully however a proper understanding of what other believe, even if you disagree should help one understand people as different but not necesaarily inferior.
Those who put forward and educated atheist point of view get my respect, and almost always they can respect a religious opinion that they disagree with. Salme methodology can apply to all competing religions and faith systems.
I am a little disappointed that you scored so well in RE studies but still want to abolish teaching of the wizards in the sky. Its a bit loaded, I for one have a clear religious preference that I do not disguise, but I am all for children leaving school with a solid grounding in multiple faith systems and choices and an clear understanding of at a minimum Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Atheism is essential to living in the modern world.

 scarletsquig wrote:

In a similar fashion, the competitive elements of PE are utterly miserable if you're socially unpopular or not very good at sports. You will have an hour of being crapped on by both your fellow students and the teachers more often than not, it is the exact opposite of motivation for those who aren't any good in the first place.

I have so much sympathy for this comment, I hated most of the sports I did and was crap at them, but sadly the cost is a little high.
If the teachers dogpile in then that is a sign of a sucky school not a sucky sports curriculum. teachers should encourage those who underperform.
Healthy competition causes people to strive to better themselves, healthy team competition helps with social bonding and instills an attitude of cooperation.
The decline in team participatory sports may accounts the increased isolation in society.

 scarletsquig wrote:

Might as well bring back the dunce hat for people who fail at maths and make them sit in the corner and be laughed at if competition is seen as a valid method of education, it is the exact equivalent of being that kid who always gets picked last for sports.

You cant legislate away disability of physical inequality, its best not to even try.
teaching should include compassion and compassion should also be taught, with good teaching yes the slow kid will always be picked last for the team, but there need not be a social stigma to it, if the attitude is we are all of different ability, but we are all one together.
Its considerably better than a dogma of avoiding any form of competitiveness in sports to make everyone a winner, as it just makes everyone a loser when they leave school and find that life just isn't like that.

 4oursword wrote:
ScarletSquig's points on PE are valid. There is no value in playing competitive sports if you just do not care about them. There never will be. Same applies if you are very bad at them or have no interest in that sport. Physical fitness, however, is important, and that is what PE should be about. Not getting barked at in mud as to why you cannot catch a ball. /rant

By my final year of school (2007), I was so fed up with abuse from bullies and donkey-caves that in PE football lessons I actively refused to participate. I stuck to the sidelines, walked away from the ball, if it came close I'd just let it pass me by, returned the verbal abuse from other kids, ignored the complaints from my irate teacher (himself a football enthusiast). And I was far from alone.

The only time I enjoyed PE in the final year was a couple months towards the end, when we were bussed to our our towns Leisure Centre for Table Tennis sessions. I enjoyed that a lot more, because the kids in those sessions were a more relaxed, friendly group, and more of my friends were included.

I used to enjoy sport, and was mad about football up to the age of ~ 10, but 5 years of compulsory weekly PE lessons with kids I actively despised put me off competitive sport for life. That, and England's abysmal performance in World Cups. If I ever pick up a sport again, it'll probably be archery. I did a couple times as a kid and loved it. Plus, few people would be stupid enough to bully someone holding a potentially lethal weapon.

Competitive sports (especially football) ought to be voluntary, opt-in only.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
If I ever pick up a sport again, it'll probably be archery. I did a couple times as a kid and loved it. Plus, few people would be stupid enough to bully someone holding a potentially lethal weapon.

We did air rifle shooting on a school trip once. Nobody bullied me after I removed the centre of the target with a few well placed shots.

At school I read Fahrenheit 451, and saw the film, and read 1984 and Brave New World, and a bunch of Evelyn Waugh stuff and Graham Greene.

Kids these days, etc.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
If I ever pick up a sport again, it'll probably be archery. I did a couple times as a kid and loved it. Plus, few people would be stupid enough to bully someone holding a potentially lethal weapon.

We did air rifle shooting on a school trip once. Nobody bullied me after I removed the centre of the target with a few well placed shots.

That's pretty awesome. The sixth form I'm at currently has Laserquest as a sports option for it's lower school. Frickin' Lasers!

Table-top Wargamers in Not Liking Competitive Sport Shocker; 'Ban it' say Nerds.

I don't get alot of the classics you talk of. I found Lord of the Rings a tedious read, and 1987 boring. That said, I've scored incredibly high at reading comprehension and vocabulary tests.

I've read tons of other things including all the Redwall books, the Narnia books and Harry Potter books. Maybe I'm still just a dumb kid but I don't think so. Some people will like and understand things like Lord of the Rings and 1987 in book format. But some people won't. It's like the person with an IQ of 80 figuring out a word puzzle that a person with a IQ of 160 couldn't get. Some people are just built that way. 1987 and the Lord of the Rings books just aren't for me.

Regarding the brits snobbing out American books and writers, some of the greatest writers and books came from America! I don't know what they were thinking. No offense meant to the may Brits who are reading this. Americans do dumb things too. See 'Redneck' for proof of this

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
I don't get alot of the classics you talk of. I found Lord of the Rings a tedious read, and 1987 boring. That said, I've scored incredibly high at reading comprehension and vocabulary tests.

I've read tons of other things including all the Redwall books, the Narnia books and Harry Potter books. Maybe I'm still just a dumb kid but I don't think so. Some people will like and understand things like Lord of the Rings and 1987 in book format. But some people won't. It's like the person with an IQ of 80 figuring out a word puzzle that a person with a IQ of 160 couldn't get. Some people are just built that way. 1987 and the Lord of the Rings books just aren't for me.

Regarding the brits snobbing out American books and writers, some of the greatest writers and books came from America! I don't know what they were thinking. No offense meant to the may Brits who are reading this. Americans do dumb things too. See 'Redneck' for proof of this

I think you meant 1984? That said, if you didn't enjoy reading either of those (1984 and LotR), I don't think you'd enjoy Shakespeare, which is significantly older than any of the books you listed, and still compulsory at GCSE. I'd much rather remove Shakespeare and replace it with Tolkein's work, than make people suffer through any more plays from the 16th century.