#461 ·
hiddendriver34 said:I’m just going to say it: I am absolutely, 100% fruity. And honestly? I couldn't care less if people find that weird. There's this weird pressure sometimes to act all stoic and "normal," but life is way too short to spend it pretending you aren't exactly who you are. It’s like trying to force a square peg into a round hole—it’s exhausting, it doesn't work, and you end up just denting the wood. I’d much rather just embrace the chaos and be my colorful, unapologetic self. If being "fruity" means living authentically, then hand me the fruit basket! kaže:
Good grief, who on earth brought up Shakespeare in second grade?😕
That article at the link? Total clickbait. It’s clearly written by someone who doesn't have the slightest clue how things actually work on the ground—especially when it comes to vocational schools and trade programs.
These projects aren't some massive, all-consuming undertakings. They’re actually done in bits and pieces—mostly just during class time with a teacher right there to help guide the way.
I mean, let’s be real—even the most hardcore literature professors probably aren't sitting down and reading the entire Odyssey from cover to cover. It's like saying you've read every single page of the Encyclopedia Britannica just to prove you're smart. Most scholars just dive into the heavy-hitting chapters or the specific parts that actually matter to their research. It’s all about the highlights and the deep dives, not necessarily grinding through every single line.😁
The same goes for the heavy hitters like Shakespeare, Drábek, Gundel, and Zoran—they’re all in the same boat.
Look, reading a quick excerpt for homework isn't exactly rocket science. It’s not like you're climbing Everest; if you have some analysis or study guides sitting right under the text to guide you, it’s practically effortless. But here's the catch: you actually have to put in the work. You can't just skim the words; you have to actually turn your brain on and engage with what's on the page. And let's be honest—that part? That’s usually the exact moment students decide they'd rather be doing literally anything else.
Look, I’ve been in this game long enough to know exactly what I’m looking at. I can tell pretty quickly whether a kid is actually breaking a sweat or just going through the motions. When you've spent this much time in the classroom, you develop a sixth sense for distinguishing between a genuine, heavy-duty effort and someone just doing the bare minimum for their age group.😉
I’m honestly struggling to follow your logic here. What exactly are you trying to argue? Are you actually suggesting that the Shakespearean approach... Judith So, here’s the million-dollar question: should you actually sit down and read the whole book for your assignment, or can you just get away with reading the SparkNotes? Honestly? It depends on how much you value your sanity (and your GPA). Look, if you’re just trying to pass a quick quiz where they ask "what color was the protagonist's hat?", sure, a summary will save you three hours of your life. You can skim the plot points, grab some character names, and call it a day. It’s like looking at a photo of a burger instead of actually eating it—you know what it looks like, but you aren't getting any of the flavor. But if you actually want to *understand* what the author is doing—the subtext, the pacing, the way the dialogue hits you—then you’ve gotta read the thing. Reading the full text is like watching a movie in 4K versus looking at a blurry thumbnail on YouTube. There’s a massive difference in the experience. When you read the actual prose, you catch those little details and emotional beats that a summary completely glosses over. Those are usually the exact things teachers bring up in essays to see who actually did the work and who just Googled the ending. My take? If it’s a classic that’s actually decent, give it a fair shot. If it’s something truly soul-crushing, maybe lean a bit harder on the study guides to help you navigate the slog. But don't skip the journey entirely if you can help it. You'll regret it when you're staring at a blank essay page wondering why everyone is talking about symbolism you never even saw.
I mean, if you're really out there advocating for fragmented reading... Judith If you're bringing up those other works mentioned by MLA, then I honestly don't know who you think you're arguing with. It’s like trying to debate the weather—everyone is already on board with that side of things.
I think I mentioned this before, but I’m really not trying to push anyone to go out and read, say, everything Judith has written from cover to cover.
I mean, I guess my point is just that she isn't even being taught in its entirety in most schools anymore, so I don't really see why we need all these grand, sweeping reforms or those sensationalist links everywhere. It feels like a bit much, maybe.
On top of all that, I was also asking about what the actual criteria are for getting new pieces added to the lists.
I suppose we really ought to look into modernizing the required reading list, though I don't see much point in rushing things. It’s mostly just a matter of figuring out what our specific criteria should be, I guess.
I guess we could probably add a few more layers beyond just the usual old versus new, hard versus easy, or boring versus interesting dynamics... maybe there’s something else we’re missing in there, though I can't quite put my finger on it yet.🤷
