Is it just me, or does the energy in the stadium completely shift when a team starts sliding? I was at a game a few years back during a particularly rough stretch for my local club, and you could practically feel the collective sigh every time a runner reached second base. It’s like the fans and the players enter this weird, unspoken agreement to just expect the worst.
I love the game, but that feeling of waiting for the inevitable "oh, here it comes" moment is exhausting. You want to be optimistic, but when you see the same mistakes happening game after game, it’s hard to keep that "bounce back" energy alive. It feels less like a sport and more like a test of endurance for the people in the stands.
When you're following a team that's struggling, do you stay vocal and loud to try and spark something, or do you just settle into a quiet, cynical rhythm until the season turns around?
Alright, let’s say I’m totally fine with them cutting all those old classics from the curriculum if we’re talking about Harry Potter and stuff. But what on earth are they hiding by ditching Salinger and Kundera? I wouldn't call myself a huge fan, but seriously—what's the deal?
So, what’s the move when you’re just grinding for a degree and a GPA—when actually knowing your stuff doesn't even seem to matter anymore? It feels like it's all about getting that stamp on the diploma and calling it a day.
Honestly, the whole system is just broken—it’s all about chasing paperwork. You go through all these hoops just to get one specific piece of paper. Even at my own dead-end job, the only way I can move up is if I go back to school to grab yet another credential. I mean, I’ve already got a decent collection of degrees from my time out West, but hey, if they want another one? Fine, let's find it.
The history of this region is basically just Canadian history—I don't know if they've scrubbed that from the curriculum yet, but we used to have a slice of world history, a slice of American history, and then a little bit of Canadian stuff tacked on because they were probably still hoping to snag that part for themselves, if you ask me.🤣
*The Little Prince* is cheesy—I'll give you that—but it's a sweet little book and can stay. *Jonathan Livingston Seagull*, though? Absolute garbage. Is that still on the required reading list?
urbantinker8 said:If something is a total drag, then I suppose it just is. For me, the money part of this whole thing is pretty much secondary, I guess.🤷 Do you really think people would actually pick up a required reading book more often if they were paid per title or based on how many pages they managed to get through?😁 I mean, that’s about the only way left to shake things up, really. Maybe then everyone would suddenly start obsessively worshipping Camus, Sartre, and Kafka all at once.🎉
Look, teenagers love them—I loved them too. It’s pure teenage angst fuel, honestly.
Salinger is fine since he's actually readable. Flaubert was pretty big back in the day, and things like Nora or the Russians were accepted in a "whatever" kind of way, I guess.
It’s sad to say, but the biggest issue with our American school reading lists is all those old classics about settlers and pioneers.
And the plays? They're often taught so poorly—it wasn't until college that I actually figured out how to read Shakespeare without wanting to die. But hey, better late than never.
Peter Doyle2 said:I think the main reason there's such a massive gap between what kids can actually handle and the unrealistic expectations placed on them at ages 7 or 8—expectations that don't even make sense developmentally—is primarily due to our American school system. We start mandatory schooling way too late compared to the rest of the world. Even back when I was pregnant with my first, people were already talking about shifting to a 9-year elementary model that would have just barely caught me in time. Yeah, right. Then there was all this talk about implementing daily mandatory sessions in preschools, not just standard daycare, but something more structured. That didn't happen either. When you look at how easily delays are brushed off, it turns out some eighth graders are still struggling with basic spelling. Preschool isn't enough for a child who doesn't attend daycare, and since there’s no universal standard for preparation among daycares, kids enter school with wildly different skill levels depending, well, on luck. In the daycare center where I worked before moving to the States, we were strictly forbidden from doing any direct instruction—I used to read books to the kids under the radar because I wasn't allowed to "gather" them for lessons. We couldn't even put things on the tables because that was seen as being too pushy; the idea was that a child should just pick whatever they want from the shelf. Now, imagine a kid coming from an environment like that, having no concept of structure or letters, walking into a classroom where most other kids had much better preparation and might even be able to quote stories already. Of course they're falling behind, and it's not because of a diagnosis or the parents or the kid—it's a systemic failure. If you look at other countries, especially the more developed ones, almost all of them start some form of mandatory schooling much earlier. Britons have their prep schools starting around age 3 or 4, I believe? My daughter's kindergarten started when she was 5; they mostly played, and the classroom felt more like a playroom with activity centers and toys, but they were working on letters and math patterns, and by the end of the year, they were reading very simple picture books through repetition. By age 6, she was basically doing what American first graders do. The point is, the kids aren't overwhelmed, and they reach those milestones gradually. Meanwhile, in America, there's this expectation that a seven-year-old should suddenly be reading literature halfway through the second semester, even if they were a total non-reader in the fall.
The Swiss have one of the best education systems in the world, and they get kids started at seven.
But honestly, wouldn't it be interesting to actually talk about how much everything has changed over time? Take the "button wars" or even something like *The Time Machine*—I mean, I've always felt *The Time Machine* works better as required reading because it keeps kids engaged. But what do people actually think about all that outdated tech they use in those stories? How do you guys even view it all today?
rowdypanther12 said:Look, I think it’s best if we give them autumn themes during their second year. I'm fairly certain it'll force them to put in some real effort and actually get them thinking about things.
Maybe they should just read some Hemingway and learn how steel is tempered—might actually toughen them up a bit.😬
urbantinker8 said:The younger generations today—probably not. I mean, their entire attention span seems limited to the length of a social media status or a quick text message. There are those rare exceptions who still sit down and read, but they seem to be getting harder and harder to find.
Great. Let's just keep shrinking the numbers and thinning them out even more.
I honestly wouldn't dream of making Tolkien, Rowling, or even GRRM mandatory reading. I mean, if nothing else, the translations for those books are just straight-up criminal—they’re basically cautionary tales of how *not* to translate literature. I'd leave them as an option for whoever actually wants to dive in, though.
As for those little fantasy dwarves, elves, and dragons? Yeah, they're total garbage. Just... ugh. 🤣
I suppose I should probably say something about chocolatecookie, though I’m not entirely sure what there is to add at this point, given how much has already been discussed, but I guess I'll just offer my two cents if anyone actually cares to hear them. It feels like we’ve been circling the same drain for a while now, and maybe I’m just being overly cautious, but I can't help but feel that certain perspectives are being overlooked in favor of more immediate, louder opinions. It’s a bit like watching a slow-motion replay where you think you know the outcome, yet you still find yourself questioning the physics of it all, I suppose. Anyway, I don't mean to ramble on about nothing, but sometimes these discussions seem to lack that certain level of nuance that makes them worth having in the first place, which is a shame, really. kaže: urbantinker8, I still haven't quite wrapped my head around what the point of required reading is supposed to be, though I suppose that’s just me, maybe. 😁
I mean, you have to admit, it’s honestly a little tragic when you see someone who is clearly an adult with a decent education putting out a statement like that. It just feels a bit off, I guess.😢
If someone truly doesn't grasp what literature is actually for—beyond just being a way to kill time or have a bit of fun—then I honestly, with all due respect and given my own professional habit of being endlessly, almost unnervingly patient when it comes to explaining things, just don't really have the heart to sit down and break it all down for them. I suppose I just lack the will to go there, sorry.🤷
Required school reading, not literature in general. The topic is specifically about why we assign certain books in school—so stay on track. Everyone knows what literature is for; the issue here is the mandatory school reading list.
Susan James said:And what exactly would audiobooks make easier? If the content itself is boring, it's going to be boring whether you're reading it or listening to it.😕
Personally, I'm not a huge fan—but for people who don't have the time to actually sit down and read, they love putting a book on while commuting to work. My barber does it all the time, actually. I think even Hook likes them too. Of course, it doesn't help if the story is a snooze-fest, but it’s pretty cool if you're interested in something but just can't find the time.