h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ages ago there was a little test done to see what would happen if the authors of that years books on the English Literature exam reading list were to do the exam...they failed the exams.

I do remember one quote from an examiner saying something like 'this candidate did not understand the motivations behind the characters actions etc.'

Basically, it showed that an English literature exam is passed by remembering what the people who wrote the primer books etc thought the book was about...if you don't answer in the way they want you fail.

Absurd really...

Funnily enough, this post echoes some of the critics made to some teachers in my classes by other students. I should mention that I'm studying in french litteratures at the University of Montréal (I'm a francophone, sorry for the mistakes). We read about 35 books a session (nearly 70 books a year) and a lot of students are complaining to my teachers that a book every lessons (that's around 12 books) is way too much.
I tend to disagree with them: analysing a book a lesson is perfectly correct, especially when you are covering a large period (say the 19th century). For some other courses which are more specialized, we tend to only read 3-5 books per session because we can use them several times for different perspective.
I also read 30 to 50 books per session to help with home exams and projects. Without them, I could easily pass, but not with good grades (I tend to be within B+ to A+ every time).

This amount of book is perfectly correct, but for an university student who can read fast enough and is studying in litterature. For a kid who might become an engineer, 50 books (during school) might be too much:
- The financial aspect would be the first I would raise. You can't take library books every lesson, they are other students and if you say to the kid to choose any book, he'll choose any books and there is no point of reading if you can't explain him what was that book all about.
- I love to read, so are several of my collegues. But they are people who don't like it, and people who would prefer audiobooks. People can also barely have time to read 50 books during school too, they have other homeworks too (and physics can take a lot of time...).
- Getting a curriculum is great, extremly useful when in litterature. But then, you can't just build it with anything. I could call myself a specialist of science fiction and queer litterature (it's a strange mix, but it's fun!), but then, it's pretty useless to have a deep knowledge of that when you take Introduction to Humanism...
A kid can read a lot of different books, but it won't be very usefull except for a general knowledge which he probably won't need and forget very easily because he'll have to read fast to get a the "job" done (if he ever read it! He can just go and search for a summary on wikipedia or ask a friend what the teacher could ask in the exam). A child only reading science fiction all his life and discovering the english romantism at the university and wanting to specialize in that pretty much screwed his past life (except for Mary Shelley and Wells, but I won't start to theorize...).

8 books per session should be a maximum (for primary and secondary schools). You have time to explain them, analyze them a bit and giving other lessons (about grammar & stuff). The financial aspect shouldn't be too much a problem and some books could be chosen among a restriction (let's say, you can pick any book, but it has to be by Verne so you can do a lesson on Verne) so you can go and take a book at the librairy.
On the other hand, the kids should be able to read at least 10 books during summer and winter vacation, of their chosing, so they can start to specialize their taste.
That makes around 30 books a year, that would be realistic.

I appear to have read 37 books since 1 January. Some of those were children's books (High School Musical: Battle of the Bands happened to be lying around the car and I read it in half an hour during lunch), some were light fiction (Ellis Peters, Georgette Heyer, Anthony Hope), some were non-fiction (The World at War, which I read with an atlas beside me, the Grand Designs handbook, Life on Air (a history of Radio 4)).

I read at lunchtime, on the toilet, in the bath, over breakfast, and for up to half an hour before bed - basically in the intervals between full-time work and running a household and family, a bit more at weekends. And I read extremely quickly, faster than anybody else I know. I always have done. So 50 books a year as a child would hardly have been a challenge for me. But I imagine it would be unrealistic for most children, especially those who like sports and being with other people far more than I do.

My own children read. The girls (12 and 14) might read 50 books a year, although I doubt it. They also play computer games, watch TV/DVDs, socialise, write, draw, make things, are involved with drama groups, sing, ride, cycle, and help around the house (Nod re-decorated her bedroom last summer). Those are all IMO more valuable activities than reading Dickens (one of the few authors I can't stand).

I imagine Karl Marx is not on Mr Gove's list. Presumably if children were to spend more time reading Victorian authors, this would help them to realise that the correct order of things is an elite class advantaged by birth and inherited wealth ruling over small, honest people who shut up and take it meekly. I can see why he's keen on the idea.

Mol

for Mol.

<>

Oh I dunno, nothing wrong with a bit of fantasy.

Fantasy?

It´s a way of analysing society, among other things, and pretty accuratly, for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci

Do you know Walter Benjamin?

Negri?

Adorno?

Habemas?

and a long etcetera of marxist thinkers who don´t write fantasy?

end of

If Marx was a writer of fantasy, it must be why he held Adam Smith in such high regard.

&#39;And I read extremely quickly, faster than anybody else I know. I always have done.&#39; [Mol]

That&#39;s something I&#39;d like to get a grip of. I know I&#39;m a slow reader. I know because if I read something at the same time as my wife, I have to stop her turning the page. However, I&#39;d like to know what the difference is. Am I reading &#39;wrong&#39;? I always feeling like I&#39;m narrating the story in my head - should I be talking with myself like that when I&#39;m reading. Does the speed of &#39;inner speech&#39; slow me down, when running my eyes across the lines might somehow &#39;absorb&#39; what&#39;s going on? To read &#39;fast&#39; I tend to read the first and last line of every paragraph, but that only works with some books. I&#39;m reading an Agatha Christie book at the moment, and if I skipped bits in that I know I&#39;d lose something along the way.

I&#39;d love to read 50 books a year - but the pace is beyond me and I&#39;m rather concerned I might be holding myself back!



The Apprentice

I ce#39&rtainl&#y co&ul#39dn;t read 59 bo#39oks a year if th;#ey were post#;39ed in barlesque.

ow, that hurts

I don't know how I do it. Sorry.

Mol