|
Post by spaceflower on Jul 17, 2014 17:23:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jul 17, 2014 19:02:40 GMT
Seems like a new way of banning books, I was thinking ... but what happens to books that are visibly and publicly banned? More people read them. Like "parental advisory". Maybe that's the hidden intention behind at least some of these requests.
Expect a controversial band or album to be named Trigger Warning any time soon. If not already.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 17, 2014 20:49:55 GMT
I see this very differently. Pig excrement is vile and I don't see why I should be asked to rub my face in it. If university lecturers think they can force me to do so in the name of... whatever, then I will welcome any move to stop them.
I'd like to elaborate, university lecturers must tell their students, "you should not read this if you do not like pig excrement and you will not fail your course or be marked down if you do not read this pig excrement." I strongly suspect some lecturers make their students read pig excrement and fail them if they refuse.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jul 17, 2014 23:05:00 GMT
So that's the vast majority of Shakespeare out then - murder, war, suicide etc; Dickens - murder, extreme poverty, child cruelty etc; Chaucer - murder (again), sexual assault, rape... in fact I think it's best everyone sticks to Winnie the Pooh.
Except Winnie the Pooh clearly has an eating disorder (obesity) and Eeyore is suffering from depression. Are there no books that are guaranteed not to upset anyone?
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Jul 19, 2014 13:18:00 GMT
As literature was my degree subject I take this very seriously.
If you are are not adult enough to handle major works of literature and the insight they give us on what it is to be a human being you really should not be taking a course on literature.
Sadly these days it has become to be considered that you have a right to study at a university. Even if you are not mentally developed enough to handle the course curriculum. People are being pushed to read stuff that they cannot interpret properly because they don't have enough life experience to put the depth of insight these novels give into perspective.
If these books cause you problems, it's because you do not have the mental development to understand their sub-plots and metaphors.
That's not a problem, we all develop at different rates and in different ways.
All I say is, resume your studies when you have developed more insight.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 19, 2014 16:41:37 GMT
I read some of those works in secondary school though, where it was compulsory
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 19, 2014 17:26:31 GMT
As literature was my degree subject I take this very seriously. If you are are not adult enough to handle major works of literature and the insight they give us on what it is to be a human being you really should not be taking a course on literature. Sadly these days it has become to be considered that you have a right to study at a university. Even if you are not mentally developed enough to handle the course curriculum. People are being pushed to read stuff that they cannot interpret properly because they don't have enough life experience to put the depth of insight these novels give into perspective. If these books cause you problems, it's because you do not have the mental development to understand their sub-plots and metaphors. That's not a problem, we all develop at different rates and in different ways. All I say is, resume your studies when you have developed more insight. Yes, it's the same with actresses who are not mature enough to strip off and act nude scenes and rape. I think the argument that you are not mature enough is a load of bull. Let me compare this with filmography. There are films which quite rightly deal with adult subjects, sex and death, rape and incest but there are also films that exhibit nastiness and gore for the sole purpose of shocking people and making money. To pretend that some of these horror films are important works of art is nonsense. They are money-making exhibits of gore. You must be an adult to view them but you are not being immature if you refuse to see them. As I see it, it's the same with literature. There are important works of literature that deal with adult subjects, but usually in a way that does not pander to money-grabbing corporate bosses. And then there are books that shock to excess in the same way as gory films. It's not a question of maturity, it's a question of resisting gory trash. I come back to my earlier post about having my nose thrust into pig excrement. I will resist any attempt by teachers to make me rub my face in it and I contend that that is not a sign of immaturity.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Jul 19, 2014 18:33:40 GMT
I couldn't agree more but those books hardly qualify as literature. The ones listed in the first post definitely are major works of literature.
Nobody said Dickens was easy. David Copperfield is horrific in places but that does not mean it is not one of the greatest novels ever written, and if the fate of the characters and their experiences is going to cause you problems . . You just are not yet ready to study the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 19, 2014 19:04:45 GMT
Good heavens Steve, since when has The Merchant of Venice been gory trash?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 19, 2014 19:45:41 GMT
The Merchant of Venice? I've never read it so I don't know whether it is gory trash or not. Was it written with a corporate bank balance in mind?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 19, 2014 20:21:20 GMT
I ... am not sure if you are joking or not
|
|
Kate
Junior lady
Posts: 381
|
Post by Kate on Jul 19, 2014 20:49:24 GMT
Hmmm I've recently read the great gatsby and thought that it was quite tame :/
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Jul 19, 2014 20:58:12 GMT
It sounds like a bunch of whiny babies trying to get out of doing their homework.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Jul 19, 2014 21:12:44 GMT
Hmmm I've recently read the great gatsby and thought that it was quite tame :/ It is if you read it as a straight novel. If,however, you see it as a metaphor of American development and contrast the ugly pragmatism of Tom Buchanan against the the doomed search for beauty and love that is Jay Gatsby's life you have a very interesting novel. Or you can read in a way in which Jay is a metaphor for the American dream, born out of poverty and achieving greatness and generosity of character but ultimately being betrayed by commercial greed, yet still being told by the Everyman figure of Nick Carraway "You're better than all of them Jay, you're better than all of them".
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jul 19, 2014 21:19:16 GMT
It sounds like a bunch of whiny babies trying to get out of doing their homework. Where's the 'like' button for this? Edit: D'oh! Found it.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 19, 2014 21:30:23 GMT
I ... am not sure if you are joking or not I've never read it - no, not joking. Was it written with a corporate bank balance in mind? - Yes, joking, sort of.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Jul 20, 2014 11:56:39 GMT
That's fair enough and from what I know of you I doubt that you have ever been tempted to study literature in any depth.
What I don't get,however, are people who elect to study something without having a clear understanding of what exactly it is they will be studying.
OK you don't want to study MOV but why would any one choose to study it in great depth and then be shocked because it is so anti-Semitic ?
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jul 20, 2014 16:05:02 GMT
The OP was talking about works of literature studied at university and in schools, not schlock horror or sex, neither of which would be on any curriculum.
Great works of literature deal with important and difficult issues. How they play out in the novel or play may even be cathartic or therapeutic to people who have suffered similar problems. A curriculum based on fluffy, lighthearted books with no possible 'triggers' ends at primary school. And people all have different experiences, so a trigger for one may not be for another: you can't possibly cater for everyone's issues, and nor should you.
I have personally been deeply affected by certain things I've read, even though I may not have necessarily been through exactly the same thing. Sometimes this happens out of the blue, so in that case no trigger warning could be possible, not would I have wanted one. For example, there's a part in The Subtle Knife (Philip Pullman - actually a teenage book) which quite clearly deals with depression, but would only be recognised by someone who has been through it. I first read it while coming out of a period of depression and it was both a trigger and cathartic for me - but there's no way I could have predicted that, and nor would I have wanted to be warned against reading it.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jul 20, 2014 20:10:01 GMT
*nods*
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Jul 20, 2014 20:28:03 GMT
On the inside of pretty much every book, it says what themes the book deals with. No need for any trigger warnings if you'd just look inside and read what's already there. *rolls eyes* It's usually mentioned in the part with the print and editor etc. You know, the things you need to know if you want to use the book as a source, something every student should be able to do? Silly 'murricans.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 20, 2014 20:44:18 GMT
On the inside of pretty much every book, it says what themes the book deals with. Rape, murder, incest, gore? Really? I'd expect the publisher to exclude anything that would put the reader off reading it.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jul 21, 2014 9:40:50 GMT
Steve, the conversation is about literature which is studied in schools and universities, not popular horror fiction.
But yes, great literature can contain unpleasant topics. Macbeth is about murder. Tess of the d'Urbervilles contains a rape. Tender is the Night has incest as one of its themes. I would not equate any of them to pig excrement, though. All great literature has something in it to upset someone, but then so does life.
But if you're really worried about 'triggers' then you can read a synopsis first, or wiki the book.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Jul 21, 2014 14:02:02 GMT
Tangent, there are enough people who'd read stuff because it has a rape in it. But that aside, in most books I've ever read, the themes description was fairly accurate. I had to read the color purple for American Lit, it contains pretty much all of the above, but is a good book nonetheless (though actually, I watched the film because I didn't have time to read the book that week). It dealt with real issues and things that really happened and still happen. Not light and fun reading, but it will teach you about the world and its history.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jul 21, 2014 17:03:48 GMT
The recommendation is unacceptable in my book. It is censorship and censorship causes blindness.
As noted, each and every work of literature which might be assigned as required reading usually has readily available synopses and unsavory stories could be avoided, but I'm not sure that there would be much in the way of adequate replacement titles.
And, so far as I know, James Joyce can be readily avoided, so the pig excrement thing is probably not an issue. As for Steve's demands, I must chuckle because, as already noted, it would ban much of Shakespeare's works...just...just think of Titus Andronicus...nothing but a huge stinkin' gore-fest. As a teacher, I have repeatedly recommended that Shakespeare be banned for its foul language, sexual allusions, and violence. I think that this ban should be repeatedly announced, weekly, to all secondary school students and some attempt made at enforcing it....all so that we can be assured that they are reading his work on the sly.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Jul 21, 2014 17:21:58 GMT
On a tangent: how do you think I make my history lessons interesting enough for the kids not to start whispering or whatever?
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jul 21, 2014 17:34:00 GMT
I'll also bet that the vast majority of the students whining about this will go home each and every evening, turn on the telly, and proceed to watch some wholesale dreck with shiploads of firearm violence and the like on whatever police procedural program they watch.
The 'violence' and 'unsavory' aspects of most great literature pales in comparison to the abominations potrayed nightly on broadcast television dramatizations. When will we be seeing 'trigger warnings' proceeding each and every television program?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 23, 2014 16:06:58 GMT
As for Steve's demands, I must chuckle because, as already noted, it would ban much of Shakespeare's works...just...just think of Titus Andronicus...nothing but a huge stinkin' gore-fest. My demand isn't that Shakespeare is banned, it's that each play has a warning on its label, "not suitable for under 18s" or whatever. Just like films. We had to read Henry V for O Level (as a 15-year old) and from what I remember, it wasn't a gore-fest. My objection is that some teachers think 'everything goes' because it's literature.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jul 23, 2014 18:24:05 GMT
As for Steve's demands, I must chuckle because, as already noted, it would ban much of Shakespeare's works...just...just think of Titus Andronicus...nothing but a huge stinkin' gore-fest. My demand isn't that Shakespeare is banned, it's that each play has a warning on its label, "not suitable for under 18s" or whatever. Just like films. We had to read Henry V for O Level (as a 15-year old) and from what I remember, it wasn't a gore-fest. My objection is that some teachers think 'everything goes' because it's literature. But, Steve...You put those warnings on it and a certain sector of the potential readership will be searching for just those warnings in order to access the salacious materials (or, whatever). It is an attempt at censorship which WILL backfire. With this approach, we might as well start publishing lists of this kind of stuff so those who 'shouldn't be reading it' can find it faster. I don't like nannys deciding on my reading materials....even you, Steve.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 23, 2014 18:55:42 GMT
The only reason why Shakespeare might not be suitable for under eighteens is that some under eighteens are likely to find him boring and hence be put off for life. Henry V has a certain amount of violence on a personal and a wider level but I can't see anyone being traumatised by it. The idea of putting 'not suitable' etc stickers on the plays strikes me as completely ludicrous though
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jul 23, 2014 19:23:44 GMT
The only reason why Shakespeare might not be suitable for under eighteens is that some under eighteens are likely to find him boring and hence be put off for life. I think that it is the language...late 16th/early 17th century English isn't 21st century English. I think if you told them that it was 'coded' in Elizabethan and showed them an adequate dictionary and some examples (like some of Billy's insults) and they'd be off, trying to find all the 'good parts'.
|
|