PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:49 am
I loved systematically dissecting books in school, it helped me appreciate them more. Shakespear par example, I couldn't really understand why it was so great until it was taken apart piece by piece.
Forum of www.bridgetothestars.net
https://bridgetothestars.net/forum/
https://bridgetothestars.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=206911
I'd actually pay to be taught by him.Teachers like that SUCK! Where's PP when you need him, eh?Well, I wouldn't have called her a bad teacher, she certainly knew her stuff. It was just that she had no way of showing literature in the artistic way it was created, it became more like Maths, if you know what I mean.I haven't read it yet, we studied a part of it in English a couple of years back.
Kinda sucks the fun out of it.
Sorry to start this discussion but I disagree. I think studying it in class only sucks the fun out of it with crap teachers.
But where's the sense of unity, of the whole book if you have to dissect every little bit of it? You take a story apart to look at all the different bits of it, and what's happened? You've destroyed the story. All that's left is words and sentences.I loved systematically dissecting books in school, it helped me appreciate them more. Shakespear par example, I couldn't really understand why it was so great until it was taken apart piece by piece.
Yep, I agree. Sometimes I think that critics read too much into a story... that they're trying to pull an interpretation out of the book that just isn't there. This doesn't just apply to James Joyce (come on, maybe he liked the colour yellow, it doesn't have to be symbolic, does it?), but a lot of literature which students study.All plays are supposed to be performed and watched.
But as I said about picking books apart and studying them and whatnot, it all depends on the quality of the teacher, I think.
Some do it in a way that ruins it and makes it a chore, but the really great ones let you see the story behind it, too.
No book was spoiled for me by studying it in depth. The opposite in fact would be true, they were enhanced. All a book is is words and sentances is it not?But where's the sense of unity, of the whole book if you have to dissect every little bit of it? You take a story apart to look at all the different bits of it, and what's happened? You've destroyed the story. All that's left is words and sentences.
As for Shakespeare, well, it always annoys me when we have to read it because his plays are meant to be performed and watched, not read.
A book is made up of words and sentences, yes, but maybe you've missed my point, which was that separating a story into its component parts loses the effect of the whole thing. The cliche 'the whole is more than the sum of the parts' is probably true in this case. If dissecting a story works for you, and enhances your appreciation of it, then that's great but I don't think it works like that for everyone.No book was spoiled for me by studying it in depth. The opposite in fact would be true, they were enhanced. All a book is is words and sentances is it not?
So by reading Shakespear I can't appreciate it? Plays are not meant to be read? I don't get that. Sure they are meant to be performed and watched but that doesn't mean they are not supposed to be read. I get great enjoyment and entertainment from reading plays.
Drats! I must be wrong.(meaning for once i agree with darragh ...
*glares*Drats! I must be wrong.(meaning for once i agree with darragh ...
I think you don't read Finnegans Wake, as such... you kinda guess your way through it. I gave up.Anybody read any James Joyce? I started Ulysses today, and I have heard people saying Finnegans Wake is the hardest book to read ever..What about y'all?