Posts by Anthony Ward6

urbantinker8 said:Good grief, give me a break.
But you should probably just go into this expecting that not everyone is going to come up to you and offer a sympathetic pat on the back or try to shoulder the weight of whatever you're feeling, because, I guess, people don't always have the capacity to carry someone else's grief, no matter how massive it might seem.🙂

I suppose I should probably mention that I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately, though I can't say I have any definitive answers, just some vague, drifting impressions that seem to settle in my mind whenever things get too quiet. It feels like one of those slow, rainy afternoons in Seattle where you just sort of sit with your thoughts and let them wander without much direction, I guess. Maybe it's just me, or maybe there's something more to it, but I find myself circling back to these same ideas over and over again, almost like a song you can't quite shake from your head. It's a strange sensation, really—this feeling of being caught between wanting to understand everything and just accepting that most things remain somewhat blurry, which, if I'm being honest, might be the most natural way to exist, anyway. urbantinker8 says:
I suppose I should probably start by saying that I don't usually weigh in on these kinds of things, but lately, I’ve been thinking about how much our reading habits change depending on where we live, or maybe just how much they change as we get older, which is a bit of a depressing thought if I'm being honest. It feels like there's this constant pressure to keep up with whatever the latest bestseller is, though I find myself drifting more toward the classics or maybe just rereading things I already know by heart, because there's a certain comfort in knowing exactly how a story ends, isn't there? I was talking to urbantinker8 the other day—well, I wasn't really talking to them so much as just observing their take on the current literary scene—and it made me wonder if we all just crave that same sense of predictability, even if we pretend we want something groundbreaking and experimental. Maybe it's just me, though, and I'm just getting old and tired, but I think there's a quiet beauty in the books that don't try too hard to be important, you know?

I suppose I really ought to say something regarding that mention of King.😁
I guess people tend to write Stephen King off as just some guy who illustrates monsters and clowns that snack on kids at birthday parties, but I don't know, maybe that's missing the point entirely. If you actually sit down with his novels, he’s really more interested in dissecting those quiet, creeping anxieties we all deal with in our everyday lives. Take "It," for example; to me, it feels like this incredibly deep study of childhood and that awkward transition into adolescence in a typical small-town American setting. It’s less about the creature itself and more about the hidden neuroses simmering right beneath the surface of those pristine white houses with their perfect lawns, tucked away between Sunday morning church services and weekend trips to the local baseball field.

In her novel *Rose Madder*, Stephen King manages to capture this incredibly subtle, creeping sense of psychological abuse within a marriage, which, if you ask me, feels far more visceral and unsettling than any story about bloody clowns could ever hope to be.
Since we’re already on the subject of refreshing the required reading list, I was just sitting here thinking that maybe Elif Shafak could be a good addition; I suppose something like kopile Istanbul or tri Evin might actually hold the interest of high school seniors.

I suppose Herman Koch’s *The Dinner* might fit the bill here too. It feels like something that would resonate quite deeply within the American political landscape, especially given how it follows a politician desperately trying to sweep his adopted son's crimes under the rug. Then again, maybe we could look at *The Casual Vacancy* by J. K. Rowling instead. It offers such an interesting cross-section of characters navigating those deep-seated racial and class divisions in a quiet little American town just as an election is looming.

Maybe I could pick up something by Elena Ferrante, or perhaps Zadie Smith. Then again, there’s Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, or maybe Junot Diaz. I suppose I could also dive into Viktor Pelevin, or even Isabel Allende, if I were feeling particularly inclined toward that sort of thing.

I think you really nailed everything you wrote there.
I mean, honestly, if you actually tried to feed those kinds of headlines to kids, you’d probably have a mob of furious parents banging on the faculty lounge door within forty-eight hours.
100%.
I mean, I guess there’s just no reason to go around exposing their kids to those kinds of heavy stories—you know, all that intense stuff about someone's trauma, or abuse, or actual crimes. It feels like maybe we should just leave them out of it.
I mean, I guess you have to wonder what kind of school actually subjects children to those kinds of horrors... it really makes you think about the environment they're being raised in.😲

I suppose I should probably mention that SummerNight was here, though I can't quite decide if they were being particularly profound or just lost in thought, which, to be fair, is a distinction that often feels a bit blurry to me anyway. It’s funny how those moments pass, I guess. Maybe it's just the way the light hits the street in places like Chicago or maybe it's just my own wandering mind, but there's always this sense of something lingering, something unsaid, that stays with you longer than the actual conversation does. I find myself drifting back to those thoughts quite often, really. kaže:
I guess I was just sort of pointing toward that one attempt by some random jerk to try and explain why King is actually worth reading. 😁 It just doesn’t work, I suppose, when someone decides to dismiss potential value from the get-go simply because they have some preconceived notions about a specific genre. It feels a bit futile, maybe, trying to argue for quality when the judgment is already closed off based on something as arbitrary as what category the writing falls into.

My dear. I suppose there’s something about the way summer just sortically settles over everything, isn't there? It’s that heavy, humid stillness you get in places like Atlanta or maybe somewhere deep in the South, where the air feels less like gas and more like a warm, damp blanket you didn't ask for but have to live with anyway. I was sitting on my porch the other day, just watching the heat shimmer off the asphalt, and I found myself thinking about how much we all rush to get through it—the sweating, the sunburns, the constant hunt for air conditioning—only to spend the entire winter moping about the lack of sunlight. It’s a strange, cyclical sort of madness, I guess. Maybe it’s just the light, though. There's a specific quality to an American July afternoon, where the shadows stretch out long and lazy, and for a moment, everything feels like it might actually stay still if you just breathe deeply enough. Or maybe that’s just wishful thinking on my part.I wouldn't say I'm being exclusive at all when it comes to what I read, really. If anything, I’m quite the opposite, I guess.
I guess what—I’ve realized I actually quite like Stephen King.😲
Just because I personally found Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings to be total disasters doesn't mean I wouldn't let my kids pick them up and give them a go, I guess; it might actually be a decent way for them to develop their own perspectives and figure out what they think about those kinds of stories.
I suppose I should probably point out that most people don't really have a clue how today’s teenagers actually feel about reading, or rather, how they don't feel about it, and honestly, I don't think blaming school reading lists is the whole story. It feels like there's more to it than just assigned books, maybe... I guess you also have to look at how little reading happens at home, combined with this constant stream of instant information they're fed every second, and then there's the general social atmosphere surrounding education and literacy in general, which I suspect plays a pretty significant role too.
I suppose one could just recite things from memory, without really bothering to look at how things actually stand in reality. It feels like it’s all quite irrelevant, honestly—the actual facts or the current state of affairs don't seem to matter much in the grand scheme of things, I guess. I suppose I should probably mention that vasa... Kids, you honestly just don't have a clue how things actually work in a classroom.
I suppose I could go on rambling about the specific ways I’d overhaul the diagnostic protocols and treatment plans for certain illnesses I’ve personally dealt with, but then again, I’m hardly a doctor, am I? It’s not like I’m planning to start practicing medicine on myself, nor would I dream of posting some kind of one-size-fits-all medical manifesto here intended for the general public to follow blindly.

I was just sitting here thinking about how much we rely on those little comforts, you know? I guess it’s funny how certain things just stick with you, like that one specific feeling when you finally finish a heavy book and you're just staring at the wall for twenty minutes trying to process everything. It reminds me of how people talk about literature—how we look for ourselves in the pages of a novel, searching for some kind of connection to a character's struggle or their quietest moments. Maybe that's why authors like Zadie Smith or Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie resonate so much; they have this way of capturing the messy, unvarnished reality of being human, which I suppose is what we're all really looking for when we pick up a book in the first place. It's a bit of a rabbit hole, isn't it? Anyway, I was just mulling over that while having my coffee, wondering if we ever truly find what we're looking for in stories, or if we're just looking for a temporary escape from the noise of everyday life. I don't know, maybe I'm overthinking it. urbantinker8 says:
Of course it isn't. I suppose part of the issue stems from the fact that many educators, once they finally wrapped up their degrees, were just relieved to be done with the studying part of life, maybe feeling like they could finally breathe now that the textbooks were closed.

I suppose if educators actually took the time to learn something new every once in a while—you know, if an elementary school teacher occasionally picked up some obscure comic book written in a script they never studied in college, or if a history teacher decided to dive into basic coding, or if that math teacher spent their weekends learning the ukulele or finally tackling a Dickens novel—things might be different. Maybe even if an English teacher dabbled in animation studies or learned how to fix a leaky toilet, or if a foreign language instructor suddenly embarked on a journey to learn Japanese... I feel like they would have so much more empathy for their students. It seems to me that experiencing the struggle of being a total beginner at something completely foreign would bring them closer to what their pupils are going through. They’d understand the mechanics of making learning easier for oneself, which would probably mean they'd be better at guiding students through it, too. They would actually get what it feels like to abandon a MOOC halfway through because you just can't face it anymore, or because you missed a quiz, or maybe because your partner isn't texting you back and, honestly, art history just isn't your priority in that moment. It’s just a thought, I guess.

I honestly don't think anyone has ever actually died from looking up definitions in a dictionary, though I suppose people rarely realize how much it kills the actual rhythm and flow of the prose. Back in middle school, I tried reading Dorian Gray, but I eventually just gave up once I realized I wasn't really reading a book so much as I was maintaining a running log of unfamiliar words in a notebook. Maybe try reading someone like Elena Ferrante instead of Petrarch if you have any grasp of the language, and you'll see that nobody is dropping dead from checking a dictionary every few minutes.

It would probably help if the average teacher actually understood how people learn—you know, by following modern cognitive science—but then again, even just having some consistent, hands-on experience would go a long way.

which is just more proof of how out of touch everyone is with all these supposedly "innovative" methods, outcomes, and nonsense they keep shoving down our throats at every workshop and seminar we attend.

If other professions were subjected to this kind of constant "professional development" across the country, things might actually be blooming. 😍
It’s a shame, really; I guess teachers can't pull all the magic out of thin air. 🙂

And manchild, what a little prince, seriously.
Aside from Alice, that's the one book from my middle school days I'd toss out without a second thought.
boooooring 🥱
damn. I liked that kid from Sutla way better than those two little essays. 🤣

🙏

I guess I thought The Little Prince was actually decent when I was a kid, but once I grew up, I realized it’s basically just a collection of inspirational crap you'd find on Tumblr.

My teacher kept trying to convince me that I'd eventually grow to love it as an adult. 😢

Peter Doyle2 said:HP was also on the list for middle school, not high school. Maybe because of their... well, I guess I just like to believe they actually decided to include stuff kids that age would find interesting alongside the classics, you know?
frupy, I really don't have the energy to scroll through this entire thread, but I don't recall anyone even mentioning IBM. I didn't go so far as to call anything trash—I just meant it felt like incomprehensible or unnecessary content for a specific age group, mostly regarding high school reading lists. All of this (Tolkien, HP, IBM) is really more for younger kids.

It's almost certain. If we actually had the author of the best-selling book in history, I guess they would probably end up on our required reading list. 😬

urbantinker8 said:I suppose I should offer one quick reality check for those of you acting like experts on this, coming from someone who actually spends every single day in a classroom with the kids in your target reading demographic🙂:
The truth is, these kids aren't going to be reading this stuff en masse anyway; you might get maybe two or three kids out of an entire class who bother, mostly because:
a) there are just too many pages to get through🙂
b) there's usually a movie version out there, so why waste time flipping pages when you can just watch the film instead?

So... yeah... all that talk about Tolkien, Harry Potter, and whatever other fantasy nonsense people keep bringing up is kind of moot, I guess.

I guess I’m not so sure about that; we all devoured Crime and Punishment back in school and everyone loved it—and if I remember correctly, the book was actually pretty thick. A good movie might just be the thing that nudges someone to pick up the book, so why wouldn't it?

Christian Wilson28 said: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 guess I just can't bring HP and LOTR together in one breath. While Rowling is a pretty decent writer, she definitely has much better work out there than Harry Potter.

Susan James said:That's just not true.
silentraven6 was actually reading him back in the day, way back in the late 20th century, during elementary school.
And he isn't literary trash; it's the movies that are the problem—they oversimplified the entire plot.

The movies are great, what's your problem? 😬
I guess it’s probably the only trilogy that actually lived up to the books instead of disappointing everyone. The films got incredibly high ratings. People only claim Tolkien is garbage because he's mainstream fantasy—honestly, he's better than that dead old man and the sea, which is just some hollow, pathetic story any talented kid could write if they wanted to pretend to struggle with the meaning of life.

As far as the movies go, I think there's a much higher chance a kid will actually pick up LOTR after seeing the film than they ever would touch that boring mess by unknown.

Linda Price5 said:And which ones, specifically, and why? 😁

Why, for instance, are we reading Russians when we aren't reading any Americans?
What does Toni Morrison lack that some local author might have—a Nobel Prize, perhaps? 😳
What are sixteen-year-olds supposed to gain from pretending to read a book written in a dialect that I, someone significantly older and reasonably literate, can barely decipher?
Why pick some old regional classic over Neil Gaiman?
Why shouldn't young children have a picture book that actually won a Caldecott medal on their required reading list?

And honestly, given that the whole point of education seems to be something you just power through because it won't make your career any better—nor will anyone at work care if you feel like writing a tedious report any more than school cares if you feel like doing your reading—I find myself wondering why we bother sending kids to school at all, let alone forcing them through several pages of this. 😁

I guess they have the hunter in the wheat, or whatever. 😬
It’s basically the most standard reading assignment anyway, so I suppose there's some justice for Americans. 🧐

Linda Price5 said:Look, I honestly don't understand why schools aren't teaching students how to actually write an essay that possesses a coherent structure.

It is vital to recognize that those who choose to move abroad are rarely "average" individuals. Most of my acquaintances living overseas are significantly more intelligent and capable than the norm, regardless of their country of origin. Even my former classmates who emigrated, whether temporarily or permanently, stand apart from the average student; they are sharper than those who merely maintained high GPAs and appeared more successful within the confines of our academic institutions.

Every incompetent clerk who lacks the basic capacity to grasp their job description or follow simple instructions is a byproduct of our educational system. Doctors from Memphis who allow a child to perish are a byproduct of our educational system. Donald Trump is a medical technician, for heaven's sake. Doctors who recommend homeopathy for conjunctivitis are a byproduct of our educational system. An economics professor who cannot calculate sales tax is a product, in part, of our educational system.

To hell with this system. 😁

I beg to differ.

😁

In my neck of the woods, most of the immigrants I know seem pretty average in terms of intelligence and skill. I guess generally speaking—those who weren't above average back home in America aren't suddenly going to be above average once they land somewhere else.

What a joke of a system. 😁

Well, maybe the system is actually broken precisely because you have both high achievers and total mediocrities working in the exact same institutions at the same time.

I get the feeling you're just bored with life, honestly. 😬

The way my colleague puts it—people just don't know how to be happy.

And maybe you've realized you don't actually like your job, which is fine, I guess... but it still isn't fulfilling you.

Maybe try focusing on some hobbies or finding something new to occupy your time.

silentraven6 said:It’s honestly not a good idea to get lazy in the long run if we want our standardized testing and high school graduation exams to actually mean something. I don't want us reaching a point where they base everything on trivial nonsense—like asking which song was playing in the background during that scene in *Olga* and *Lina* when they find the piano, or what color flower Julia had tucked in her hair when Romeo first saw her, or even what shade of blue the sky was in *Romeo and Juliet*. We need substance, not trivia.

The worst part about all this is that people start asking these kinds of questions before they’ve even sat kids down to explain what the symbols mean. They don't bother pointing out those specific moments that actually deserve extra attention—whether it's within the pacing, the overall work, or just the flow of the action itself.

The fundamental question really comes down to this: what is the actual purpose of required reading, and who exactly gets to decide which books earn the title of "classic," "canonical," or a "masterpiece"?

Like I’ve said before, what actually makes up "the canon" isn't some fixed, holy truth. It’s really just whatever the zeitgeist decides it is at any given moment. You’ve got groups of hyper-focused literary historians—including those self-proclaimed "experts" who act like they discovered everything yesterday—as well as the academic establishment (usually those folks over at the Academy of Sciences who, let's be honest, often lacked any real teaching intuition even back when they were lecturing at universities). Then you have the social order shaped by ideology, and even small circles of dedicated humanists who are genuinely trying to make a difference. The canon is always being re-evaluated. It isn't some untouchable, sacred category that stays frozen for centuries; it never has been in history. Throughout time, the selection of canonical authors and works has been swayed by all sorts of phenomena—most often that pedagogical and didactic element used to serve specific ideologies, certain ways of teaching, or particular methods of study.

I honestly can't get behind this whole idea that kids today are lazier than previous generations just because of how they handle required reading. Let's be real here—kids have always been lazy. Every single one of us knows that. I'm 34 years old now, and even back then, only a tiny fraction of us actually sat down to read entire books from cover to cover, let alone any extra stuff. If anything, I think it was even worse in the past. Remember those ridiculous reading logs? Those massive 25-page booklets where you had to list everything you "read"? Half the time, it was just moms sitting there filling them out for their kids. It was a total sham. Nowadays, with the way written tests are structured, it’s much harder to cheat like that. It feels like the focus has shifted toward actual discussion and dialogue about the books, which is a much better way to see if someone actually engaged with the story.

That’s a whole different conversation: what even qualifies as "required reading," and what is its actual purpose? Does it really need to be confined strictly to American literature classes?

It feels like we’re constantly trying to justify ourselves by clinging to the canon. We act like because we forced these books down everyone's throats, and they turn out to be terrible or just too much work to actually read, then it’s somehow not our fault. It's like we're shifting the blame. A massive group of people decided that ten specific works were "masterpieces" just because of some high-brow artistic label, but most people don't want them. To them, it's all just a chore—too heavy, too tedious, just plain exhausting. It’s honestly a bit pathetic.

We basically washed our hands of their whole reading culture. I mean, the entire idea behind required school reading was to cultivate a genuine love for books, to sharpen aesthetic judgment, and to build up critical thinking skills—not just to serve as a dry history lesson on literature.

My favorite type of people are those who constantly lecture everyone else about "the classics," even though they only ever cracked them open because it was required for a high school English credit and haven't touched them since. Seriously, how is that even considered reading? How is that supposed to be a love for literature? About 90% of these critics—the ones calling everyone else lazy for skipping the old stuff—have never actually picked up one of those books again, let alone explored another work by the same author. They remind me of those religious types who swear by the Bible but haven't read a single actual letter from it unless they're hearing it read aloud during a sermon at church.

The whole idea that Americans don't read? Honestly, I think that’s complete nonsense. It's just not true. You can't look at a claim like that and call it a valid data point when you aren't even accounting for all the variables. People are reading; they're just doing it differently than how some folks might expect.

When you look at the data, most people focus on book acquisitions or, more recently, how libraries are adding physical media to their collections. But honestly, even that doesn't give you the full picture. It’s impossible to get an accurate sense of the actual state of things because not every library is integrated into the central database—like the Library of Congress system. You also end up missing out on private exchanges between institutions, small local home libraries, and we’ve only just started accounting for alternative sources like e-readers. There are just too many gaps in the data to say we have the whole story.
Also, what can we actually say about library access across the US? Does anyone here actually know what the situation looks like on the ground? I’m curious how well-equipped school libraries in smaller towns really are—specifically regarding collections that aren't just strictly required reading lists. What are they doing to actually encourage kids to read for pleasure? Are librarians in those smaller communities taking the initiative to build up their own little collections to spark some interest in the smallest readers?

I could be really mean here and say that if my kid wanted to find something beyond the required reading list, he’d first have to hunt down a librarian somewhere in the school hallways and try to actually strike up a conversation that isn't just, "Hey, I need this for class." But honestly, I know that's not how it works, and I truly respect the work librarians do all over the US. They run such incredible programs and workshops. How many of them are doing that kind of heavy lifting? I don't know, but it feels like there aren't nearly enough. On one hand, you have my life in a place like Chicago—I'm basically a professional bibliophile who spends way more time tucked away in libraries than the average person. I feel at home in them. Instead of grabbing coffee on a busy street corner, I’d much rather be sitting in a library, reading, working, or just chatting with the staff. But then there's the rest of the country. There's the issue of accessibility, the actual availability of books, and the reality that for a lot of people, purchasing power is just too low to make reading an easy choice.

And why on earth should reading assignments be confined strictly to English class? If we’re actually serious about encouraging people to read—if we really care about preserving literary history, the canon, and all that other stuff—then we can do it during math, history, or physics too. Think about the massive potential hidden in the papers of legendary physicists. Honestly, let's stop this constant brainwashing in English class that strips the subject of its actual purpose. Let them read in the original languages they're learning in school; let them dive into scientific papers, essays, or even feuilletons. It’s absurd to act like English class is the only way to spark an interest in reading, or like reading is nothing more than just picking up a piece of fiction.

so—they're lazy.

😬

Maybe laziness isn't quite the right way to put it... our kids aren't stupid, but they seem to be getting increasingly duller with every generation—from every angle. It starts with parents who constantly lean on teachers because an exam feels "too hard" or because the material isn't explicitly in the textbook and such.

And yeah, the SATs show this perfectly. Just think back to that incredibly basic math problem from the standard level that 12,000 students couldn't solve. My niece took her biology exam last year. It used to be a subject for straight-A students until they overhauled the curriculum to focus on logic and reasoning—one question actually featured a picture of a road sign, a triangle with a frog on it. You have to believe that most seniors were complaining about that specific question because the MATERIAL WASN'T IN THE TEXTBOOK?! The English exams had questions along those same lines—you just had to think a little bit, but how are these kids supposed to think when nobody has asked them to do so for twelve years?

And no, I don't believe Americans read—I mean, research can never be perfect, but the only statistics we actually have support what they show. That seems a lot more credible to me than anyone's individual anecdotes.

silentraven6 said:Smart, if you’re going back to Kafka, I’d suggest checking out Castle 🙂

Regarding the whole debate about academic high schools versus vocational schools—honestly, the reading list shouldn't be so massive that it dictates someone's SAT scores or their entire grasp of general culture. Sure, there needs to be a core set of universal classics, but the lists should also be curated in a way that actually encourages a chef or a mechanic to pick up a book. I don't care how it happens, as long as they eventually stumble upon something high-quality.

And frankly, screw the prestige of academic high schools and all those snobby vibes about them being the breeding ground for "new intellectuals." I've lost count of how many times life has thrown people my way who never even stepped foot in a prep school or finished college, yet the literature they read is honestly enviable.

But look, if you actually wanted to put together a solid reading list for, say, future engineers, electricians, or mechanics—people you'd want to inspire to pick up a book after they've spent all day getting their hands greasy under an engine block—you’d have to be a clever researcher who genuinely loves literature.

I'm not sure if you've seen that Prince series. That guy can teach kids more in a single hour than some history professor manages in their entire career.

And if you'll excuse me, most shows about books and literature are either scheduled at ridiculous hours or are just totally inappropriate for younger audiences.

Nowadays, you get one hit series that inspires people to read so much you can't even find a decent book at the local library for months.

But the gap unfortunately does exist.

The national standardized tests aren't mandatory for vocational students; they're designed for the prep school crowd. It is what it is.

Larry Walker24 said:Those novels that claim to be "stream of consciousness"... give me a break. Faulkner’s *As I Lay Dying*? What kind of garbage is that? Honestly, worst book I've ever picked up. Absolutely revolting.

Supposedly, according to these surveys, *The Catcher in the Rye* has been sitting at the top of the list for students for years now. I seriously don't get it.

Why aren't we giving kids something like *The Master and Margarita* instead?

Or maybe some Laclos, like *Les Liaisons dangereuses*?

Even for English class, they could just dive into Tolkien's *Silmarillion*—even if there isn't an American translation yet.

Or for German class, check out *Miriam Preisler - Bitterschokolade*. Highly recommend it. You can even borrow it from the Goethe Institute. It's perfect for high school freshmen or sophomores.

I guess that’s really where the issue lies—kids today are incredibly lazy. It seems like any book that isn't written in the simplest possible prose is too much for them; heaven forbid they actually have to look a word up in a dictionary or sit with a bit of subtext for a moment. I suppose Hunter in the Rye is popular simply because it's easy to digest, making it perfect reading for the unmotivated. And honestly, we shouldn't be coddling high schoolers just because they find things challenging—what's next, cutting math from the curriculum because it's too difficult or boring for them?

You bring up Lord of the Rings—well, I'd bet almost 90% of them would give up within the first thirty pages. Those books are incredibly dense and, frankly, quite tedious at times. Even the Hobbit is probably one of the most boring books ever written. Most would just watch the movies instead. I think people should focus on reading works that actually carry some weight, whether literary or historical. It feels a bit ridiculous to complain about high schoolers being unable to grasp a complex required reading, really. Parents are basically raising their kids to be completely incompetent.

brightheron64 said:Quincy...

Blah, blah, blah...

I’ll just mention one thing:

I had Nazorov as required reading back in elementary school myself. Only difference is, I was reading Percy Jackson instead of White Deer... 😉

The child I’m talking about has been a member of the public library since they were five years old. If there is any sense of continuity in my family, it is this culture of reading. When I was setting up a new room for the kids, the very first step wasn't the bed—it was installing the reading lamps...

So, please, don't... It’s honestly heartbreaking to see you trying to pass down this forced, artificial conditioning to the next generation...

Of course. Just like how anyone who doesn't recognize Jackson Pollock as a transcendent genius is clearly just some simpleton with zero appreciation for beauty...

There we go, now we’re just uneducated Americans without any literary culture...

You can only build a foundation by inspiring someone, not by forcing them into it. Isn't our own history proof enough of that?

Well... yeah. We are. The Secretary of Education is on Facebook posting about how she managed to find some cherries and strawberries, while Americans statistically read less than the European Union average. It always surprises me how little people realize what's actually happening in their own country.

Yeah, it really is THAT bad.
I suppose it might be time we stopped lying to ourselves.

You can only build foundations by encouraging someone, not by forcing them. Isn't our own history the best proof of that?

No. Actually, quite the opposite—our history shows us that we HAVE to be forced to work, because we're an incredibly lazy and incompetent people who only function properly under someone else's boot. Giving Americans freedom of choice is a very, very dangerous game, because there's a 90% chance they'll choose wrong.

No required reading list is even being considered—not in a country where the loudest rural crowd thinks high schoolers are too young to read ANYTHING that mentions sex. We have to lay down some foundations (first and foremost) so we stop raising total imbeciles who lack critical thinking skills—which we currently don't have (not that I mean to offend anyone), and once we fix that... then maybe we can pretend to be like the Finns.

silentraven6 said:wanderingbadger44, man, I don't think it's quite like that.

There are certain titles out there that just don't offer anything of substance. They get treated like relics from the Stone Age, taught without any actual critical thinking, basically just acting as mindless extensions of literary history.

And let's be honest, teachers aren't always open to a different perspective.

We could go on forever about what defines "the canon." To me, the word "canon" is often just a convenient excuse for poor teaching methods. Historically, it’s been used as a tool for ideological indoctrination to maintain the social status quo. I mean, why is one author considered a classic while someone like Mile Budak is being pushed into the curriculum?

In my opinion, the fix is a 50/50 split: mandatory reading accompanied by reading journals and written tests—plus other ways of analyzing the work—balanced against elective reading for presentations.

it actually is. I guess it’s exactly as wanderingbadger44 laid it out, and anyone thinking otherwise is probably just living in a massive delusion. Voting matters mostly for nations that actually have a reading culture and a robust education system, which America doesn't have and likely won't have for at least the next 50 years.

I suppose you have to lay some actual foundations before you can start building anything on top of them.

vividmason11 said:@Mackomir, one more thing. I’m guessing you aren't quite 30 yet. Right now, your biggest selling points are just your age and your degree. But eventually, being young stops being an advantage, and your resume will need to carry much more weight with actual references to make up for it. I don't know how many solid connections you can really build in the US, but I do know that Germany will offer way more opportunities to stack those credentials. In my opinion, those years between 20 and 27 are the most critical because that's when you lay your professional foundation; once you hit 35 or 40, people expect you to be an expert. The worst thing is having a gap in your twenties—once you lose that momentum, it’s hard to get it back. My son is 24, so we're right in the middle of that phase.
Just remember, whatever path you take, it takes five years to actually get good at what you do, and ten to become a master.
Every move, especially moving to a new country, is a total reset, and that clock starts over at zero. So, use your head and don't waste time.

Based on what I’ve actually lived through, I have to say that isn't true. 😉

OT—well, yeah, obviously go. Leaving America is always a solid move for anyone with an education.

Brandon Lopez6 said:🤔

If that's the case, why isn't the mortality rate way higher among the poor?
And where do we even draw the line?

In the US, almost everyone working has some kind of coverage, and if you pay an extra $23 a month for supplemental insurance, pretty much everything else is covered.
Does that mean every working person is basically wealthy?

I’m still sticking to my guns: money makes being sick easier, but it can't buy you actual health—nope.
To me, being healthy means actually *being* well, not just managing a bunch of issues.
Money helps with the second part, but it’ll never buy that first one.

Would you rather be healthy and broke, or loaded but constantly running to doctors because your body is failing? I’d pick the first one 🤷 every single time.

The mortality rate actually is higher among those living in poverty.

Every working person in America has health insurance, and supplemental coverage costs about $23 a month, which pretty much makes everything else free.

Even unemployed people have mandatory coverage, just a FYI—supplemental plans are basically useless when it comes to dentistry, for example... because you'll end up shelling out $67 for a decent filling, and anything major will run you around $333. Dental issues can lead to all sorts of serious complications, so it's easy for your life to get complicated just because you couldn't afford quality care.

Also, when it comes to specialists or surgeries in the US, you might be waiting years... patients are left with expensive private options, and plenty of people simply can't afford to wait. For instance, public hospitals in America often use outdated equipment, so any woman who cares about her health is going to see a private specialist because they have better tech, making the exam much more thorough. And, obviously, that comes at a massive price.

To me, health means being healthy, not just treating a specific problem.

When we talk about healthcare disparities, we're primarily talking about SICK people who need treatment—after all, everyone gets sick at some point in their lives. It seems somewhat irrational to define health as only those who have never been ill.

Money helps with the second one, but it can never buy the first.

It certainly can—as someone mentioned, money buys high-quality food, housing, and regular checkups. You have a much higher chance of falling ill if you're living an unstable life under constant stress, in a cold or cramped apartment, eating cheap junk food, compared to someone who can afford optimal living conditions. So... it's probably more realistic to see a person who is poor and riddled with health problems than someone who is both poor and healthy.

Money literally buys health; that's just a fact, not an opinion.

Brandon Lopez6 said:Oh, really?

So if I had a million bucks, suddenly my depression, anxiety, kidney stones, and PCOS would just vanish?🍿

Sure, money can buy you certain treatments or meds, but there’s absolutely no guarantee it actually fixes you.

In my book, "being healthy" and "paying to manage medical issues" are two completely different things.

Money gets you access to top-tier hospitals, specialists, and advanced therapies—which basically jacks up your odds of recovery; in plenty of cases, money actually does guarantee a cure, especially when you're looking at medications or procedures that the government won't cover. Money, without a doubt, buys health... for many people, being wealthy is exactly what saved their lives. 😉

OT - I guess I interpret this study a bit differently: maybe it's just one more piece of evidence showing that happiness and money are correlated... essentially, that happiness really can be bought. To me, the specific amount where happiness stops depending on wealth doesn't matter much, especially since a monthly budget of $6,000 is going to remain an impossible dream for most Americans for decades to come.

Andrew Gomez40 said:Even if she technically screwed up, it doesn't really affect us—the blame lies with the organizer. It’s on them to secure a replacement before they ever announce someone is coming. Announcing next year's lineup already feels pretty ridiculous.

It isn't really on the organizers, because there's always a inherent risk of a cancellation—that responsibility lies entirely with the artist. I guess people act like they're so outraged, but honestly, maybe they've only been to a handful of shows in their lives if they think this kind of thing is some unprecedented disaster.

Andrew Gomez40 said:By the time they realize they should have just grown some balls and told the truth, it’ll be too late. I guess the festival will be gone by then.

The festival isn't going to lose anything just because Florence canceled. 😉

Telling the "truth" isn't really about being honest—it’s more about how much common sense and professionalism you actually have. Some things just shouldn't be said out loud... especially if you're trying to book that same artist again next year, so it probably isn't the smartest move to tank their PR.

Rachel Kern26 said:I won't quote everyone—thanks for clarifying how the cards work. Just one thing though: where and when do I pay? Like, at some booth on the day of Coachella, or can I go earlier? Maybe tomorrow?

On the day of the festival, once you're inside. They have specific booths set up for that.

vividraven7 said:...some female artist canceled her Coachella set because she wasn't happy with her deal, or maybe she just didn't want to travel to a Coachella to prep for Glastenbury.

If that makes sense to you, then I guess why bother trashing Coachella? It isn't their fault. When people talk about conspiracy theories, they mean stuff like saying Florence never even agreed to play Coachella in the first place and it was all just a stunt by the organizers to draw a crowd. Obviously, they don't want bad PR, duh. I mean, who does? 😬

But honestly, the constant whining from people who apparently didn't realize that concerts can just get canceled at the last minute is exhausting... it's the same thing with refunds, where nobody seems to bother reading what's actually printed on their ticket. 😬

vividraven7 said:I mean, I get that you can lose track of all the sets and dates, but she isn't quite confused enough to say "this weekend" when she actually means next month..

If you look at how she uses the phrase "this weekend," it’s pretty obvious she isn't sure of herself & it seems clear she doesn't even know where or when she was supposed to perform. If she had made that video for some other festival, people would have caught onto which one immediately.

I’d say she screwed over the Florence crowd more than Coachella. As for deleting comments—I don't really see the issue; I assume they're just fed up with everyone being toxic... from the people demanding refunds to those pushing conspiracy theories.

goldendrifter19 said:The whole situation with her canceling that Chicago show feels pretty weird to me.

Honestly, I don't see it that way. 🤷
It doesn't strike me as odd at all, especially that "this weekend" bit—I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if she barely knows her own tour schedule half the time. Maybe they tried to book her and the money wasn't right, or she just hated the terms, so everything fell through at the last minute. You can tell from the video that she’s genuinely pissed off.

She has a gig on June 21st, then nothing until the 25th when she hits Glastonbury. So, it actually makes sense that she blew us off if she really needs those few days to recover.

vividraven7 said:I wonder how Coachella explains this?

I guess Florence should be the one explaining it, rather than Coachella. She actually posted a video for her fans apologizing for the cancellation and mentioning it was due to a foot injury. You can find it on the Coachella YT channel.