Sorry, ass-umptions.
Community College
As far as literacy goes, it certainly seems to me that at one time more "educated" people could read King James, Shakespeare, Richard Hooker, and such luminaries of the English past with greater ease than the appalling evidence I have seen lately. The mix of societal, political, and technological trends contributing to this inability both troubles and saddens me.
|
I never learned to read...
Well, that's lawyering for you. Simple words twisted into bizarre meanings.
You confirm my suspicions about the Law profession!
;)
Re: topic. Amen. I can't stand 99% of the fantasy lit out there either. Heck, I can't stand most of the crap published these days, regardless of genre.
*Goes back to reading some Saul Bellow*
*Goes back to reading some Saul Bellow*
At the moment I'm reading Herzog. I loved The Adventures of Augie March, which I read about a year ago.
The thing is, I don't go around recommending that people read what I like to read. For example, I don't tell people that they need to read Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. I recognize that what I read is not necessarily something that other people are likely to read or enjoy.
Have some confidence. Assert yourself, and force the ignorant to read what you read. Torture is still legal, so hurry up.
The US enjoys a 99% literacy rate, according to government metrics. While I've met many people, even university-educated, who don't read well, and poor spellers are a plague all the way to the post-doc level, I've never actually met anyone under 70 I would consider illiterate.
Not understanding a form of English in excess of 500 years old and out-of-use does not an illiterate make.
One of the things I've never understood is reading secondary source essays on a literary work... I miss plenty, especially in works with layer after layer of meaning and subtext, but it would still rather have a discussion on the work with someone else who has read it than read a piece of rhetoric on the work.
This isn't a criticism for those of you who do enjoy such readings, simply a semi-off topic statement of confusion.
Not understanding a form of English in excess of 500 years old and out-of-use does not an illiterate make.
Awww... but middle english is so interesting!
I'd say that if you think most things printed aren't worth reading, then you wouldn't be surprised that most things written on things printed (at least) would fall into that same category.
And those literacy rates have no bearing on what I mean when I say that a shocking number of literate people don't know how to read
1. a novel of any degree of sophistication,
2. a poem,
3. formative works in their mother tongue that are only a few hundred years old, or
4. even rudimentary course textbooks on subjects on liberal subjects.
If one can't read Locke, Shakespeare, Milton, Blackstone, et al, then I want to come up with a name for one's language slot other than "English." Say, "inglish."
I'd say that if you think most things printed aren't worth reading, then you wouldn't be surprised that most things written on things printed (at least) would fall into that same category.
And those literacy rates have no bearing on what I mean when I say that a shocking number of literate people don't know how to read
1. a novel of any degree of sophistication,
2. a poem,
3. formative works in their mother tongue that are only a few hundred years old, or
4. even rudimentary course textbooks on subjects on liberal subjects.If one can't read Locke, Shakespeare, Milton, Blackstone, et al, then I want to come up with a name for one's language slot other than "English." Say, "inglish."
No, no I understand.
It's just that I don't think the numbers of people who can read it have fallen, just that they were never high, and so the further you get from them, say teacher rather than student class-mate, the less you'll see. Shakespeare reading isn't so much about literacy as it is interest, I have passing interest and have read some of his works, but a very close friend of mine has numerous anthologies of his works all of which she has read, and she has mild dyslexia.
It'd sadden me if my generation was truly less literate, ...No, no. Don't worry. We're redefining literacy to include twittering-as-literate-activity. Your generation's fine.
*laughs*
That bebo and txt-spk and you have the mighty triad of teenage communication. Because don't get me wrong most teenagers and even college students are ridiculously silly. Just no more or less than previous generations teenagers.
Sry, i mnt prvees g3n3rayshion tnagers. :D
The biggest frustration I find with text-speak is when it seeps into professional reports unnoticed by younger employees. Don't get me wrong, I'm 19, but seeing "2" instead of "to" or "too" on a report is just plain annoying.
The biggest frustration I find with text-speak is when it seeps into professional reports unnoticed by younger employees. Don't get me wrong, I'm 19, but seeing "2" instead of "to" or "too" on a report is just plain annoying.
I totally agree, people did it in their english exams somewhere last year, which became a big 'todays youth tut tut' fiasco.
Those kids were dumb, doesn't mean we all are. Text speak annoys me, but its not just a symptom of youth, my mother uses it for gods' sakes, I use better over the phone english than she does because I don't really use much of it at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
vagrant-poet,
I don't think the issue is literacy, per se, as much as it is the fact that, as colleges continue to lower their admission standards, more and more kids who do not possess a certain level of language mastery are earning degrees and entering the white collar workforce.
Part of this phenomenon relates to the modern educational philosophy (brought in in the '70s, as far as I can tell, and broadened since) that states failing a kid is bad for their self esteem. When the Baby Boomer generation went to school, if they performed poorly, they failed. Their parents got on their asses, and they either did better or they pumped gas for a living. Starting when I was in school, in the '70s, kids were failed less and less, as "self esteem" became more important than actually being able to do the work.
This lead to another recent phenomenon, unseen in my parent's time: remedial classes at four year universities. In my opinion, by the time someone gets to college, they should have already been prepared by their high school to do the work. College isn't the place to learn how to spell, write, do research, or perform basic algebra; if a student doesn't already possess those skills, they shouldn't be in college.
Worrying about a kid's feelings instead of worrying about their ability to perform simple academic tasks (like writing with proper grammar and spelling or knowing the quadratic equation) doesn't do the kid or society any favors. When I was managing a gelato shop, I had to ask one applicant (who attended the U. of Houston, apparently) if she had a four year old fill out the application. She failed the basic money math portion of the form, and her spelling and grammar were horrendous.
Unfortunately, many of the good jobs a kid who couldn't cut college could find 30 years ago are gone, as either they've gone overseas (manufacturing) or they require a Bachelor's degree these days. So, four year universities have to serve a dual function now: teach our best and brightest AND serve as "grades 13-16" for those a bit on the dull side...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Houstonderek's assessment of how higher education has changed. Since it's a requirement for such a large portion of the employment that is currently available in the US, the standards have understandably dropped.
To Mairkurion, one thing that has definitely changed is a shift away from grammar and English language education in the US. I graduated from a Catholic high school in '99, and I remember taking spelling tests, diagramming sentences, being required to comprehend Shakespearean English, knowing what a split infinitive is, and so on. I just figured that was something that everybody did. I have come to learn that that was just my private school; everybody I know that went to public school tells me they never did any of that. While there is still a strong emphasis on basic reading, education on the finer points of language and grammar sadly seems to be a thing of the past.
At the OP. Do you not find that it's the same in most things that you look at? I find that the vast majority of people I meet almost refuse to accept that someone can have a different opinion to themselves. On any given subject. They always feel they have to be right.
I think it depends on what it is. For example, if we're talking about likes and dislikes in terms of ice cream flavors, I can accept that not everyone likes what I like. However, if we're talking about politics, then of course, everyone has to accept what I think about the subject, because I'm obviously right. :P
Thanks for making me depressed you monster.
I aim to please. :)
@houstonderek, celestial healer
Ah, fair enough. It's not quite the same here, many people who are not at all academic drop out after the junior cert, which is in 3rd year in secondary school, around the age of 15.
Then the rest stay steady, not neccesarily the most gifted students, but more willing to work at the Leaving Cert. Which was until recently, may still be, the broadest and one of the highest rated 2nd level education qualifications in the western world. And people do fail that if they don't work.
Of course this is more exaggerated in the country bcoz there is work for drop-outs, so many city schools have the more dead weight students stay on, and provide a requisite of college drop outs here too.
I just don't think self-esteem is as important a factor, and thus we have slightly lower levels of weaker students, remedial facilities, certainly as the years go on, its also far less modulised, I think. Yet, we're going the way of politness over fact. And the PC police have had a boom in Ireland over the last 5-10 years.
|
|
One of the things I've never understood is reading secondary source essays on a literary work... I miss plenty, especially in works with layer after layer of meaning and subtext, but it would still rather have a discussion on the work with someone else who has read it than read a piece of rhetoric on the work.
This isn't a criticism for those of you who do enjoy such readings, simply a semi-off topic statement of confusion.
Awww... but middle english is so interesting!
Not understanding a form of English in excess of 500 years old and out-of-use does not an illiterate make.
It's crap compared to Old English.
I blame the French.
As long as we're discussing literary fantasy authors, I may as well give a tip of the hat to Gene Wolfe. LeGuin once dubbed him the Melville of the fantasy genre. I'd tend to agree.
Definitely this. Gene Wolfe is one of the most important and interesting authors working in the last half-century, and is a vital read for anyone interested either in SF/Fantasy or in modern mainstream literature. The guy is a genius and in the development of fantasy THE BOOK OF THE NEW SUN is the most important book (printed in four volumes) of the last thirty years. He was massively influenced by Jack Vance and Roger Zelazny as well.