(no subject)
A rant about English Lit...
Riding home from school as usual, after writing 2 crappy english essays, I stop (not physically) and listen to the music I'm listening to. Really listen. Now here's my question, why can't we analyse things like this instead of the bullshit they make us analyse? I forgot what I was listening to, but I think it was Dredg - Symbol Song. Listening to how the structure of the song works, how the instruments are played, how they converge with one another to bring about the beautiful synthesis known as music. And I wonder, why are we not allowed to analyse this? As the bullshitters known as literature teachers have told us, everything can be seen in literary terms. I notice how verse works with the music, to form a beauty questioning human existence itself. Metaphysics anyone?
See the thing is I wouldn't half mind analysing, debating and discussing the literary genius present in the music of Dredg. And with anything that you enjoy, you tend do work harder and do better in, so why not? Well here's the obvious answer that they would provide us with, it would be too hard to mark. Bringing my to another of the flaws present in the English Curriculum, the marking of human ideas. The fact that they grade your opinions, that is if you have opinions. Half of the teachers would rather you echo their own back at you (so you want good marks, eh?). Bringing me to another point. The subjectivity of English marking. Now they teach us how everything is a construction of their surroundings, their upbringing, their family etc etc. The impossibility of objectivity.
I've been told by Mr Curtis, that because of my style of handwriting (flowing cursive), which is too difficult for them to read, I will be docked from 5 to 15%. This for me is the difference between a B, a C or a fail. Now other then the irony of English Lit. teachers complaining about my handwriting the other farscicle element of this complaint is the fact that my style of handwriting stems directly from that which I was taught in Primary School, modern day cursive. I've got textbook cursive, "running writing" handwriting, which because of its beautiful flowing nature is difficult for them to read. Well FUCK THEM, they get paid to read my writing, so why are they complaining about it?
Also, Mr Curtis complained about my long sentences and how I draw out my points. Well you stupid English Department, if you do not want me to do this kind of thing, why did you not try and teach me the proper way to write concise sentences in my lower schooling. This, instead of teaching us all to bullshit and draw everything out. I haven't even been taught how to write a proper English essay thanks to having no decent English teachers in lower school and them coming to the (false) conclusion that we should have already learnt essay writing in school. Dumb fucked up English people, with their great knowledge of the literary how come they know jack about communication skills?
Riding home from school as usual, after writing 2 crappy english essays, I stop (not physically) and listen to the music I'm listening to. Really listen. Now here's my question, why can't we analyse things like this instead of the bullshit they make us analyse? I forgot what I was listening to, but I think it was Dredg - Symbol Song. Listening to how the structure of the song works, how the instruments are played, how they converge with one another to bring about the beautiful synthesis known as music. And I wonder, why are we not allowed to analyse this? As the bullshitters known as literature teachers have told us, everything can be seen in literary terms. I notice how verse works with the music, to form a beauty questioning human existence itself. Metaphysics anyone?
See the thing is I wouldn't half mind analysing, debating and discussing the literary genius present in the music of Dredg. And with anything that you enjoy, you tend do work harder and do better in, so why not? Well here's the obvious answer that they would provide us with, it would be too hard to mark. Bringing my to another of the flaws present in the English Curriculum, the marking of human ideas. The fact that they grade your opinions, that is if you have opinions. Half of the teachers would rather you echo their own back at you (so you want good marks, eh?). Bringing me to another point. The subjectivity of English marking. Now they teach us how everything is a construction of their surroundings, their upbringing, their family etc etc. The impossibility of objectivity.
I've been told by Mr Curtis, that because of my style of handwriting (flowing cursive), which is too difficult for them to read, I will be docked from 5 to 15%. This for me is the difference between a B, a C or a fail. Now other then the irony of English Lit. teachers complaining about my handwriting the other farscicle element of this complaint is the fact that my style of handwriting stems directly from that which I was taught in Primary School, modern day cursive. I've got textbook cursive, "running writing" handwriting, which because of its beautiful flowing nature is difficult for them to read. Well FUCK THEM, they get paid to read my writing, so why are they complaining about it?
Also, Mr Curtis complained about my long sentences and how I draw out my points. Well you stupid English Department, if you do not want me to do this kind of thing, why did you not try and teach me the proper way to write concise sentences in my lower schooling. This, instead of teaching us all to bullshit and draw everything out. I haven't even been taught how to write a proper English essay thanks to having no decent English teachers in lower school and them coming to the (false) conclusion that we should have already learnt essay writing in school. Dumb fucked up English people, with their great knowledge of the literary how come they know jack about communication skills?