Pardon the hijack, but I recently created a DEAD POETS SOCIETY game. It was for a friend- an English prof who recently retired and who was a huge movie buff- and for his going away I created pics of him in some of his favorite movie posters. Most resembled the poster, but the one for DEAD POETS SOCIETY not so much (though I did use his face on the dwarf).
So, Sampiro’s DEAD POETS SOCIETY GAME-
How many can you name?
God help us, it’s real.
I used the poetry text mentioned in that Wikipedia cite! (In fact, I still have my copy.) However, it was the text used in my AP English class and not the one used in my aforementioned freshman honor’s poetry class a year later.
To my AP English teacher’s credit, it was only used for the poems contained within and not for any of the commentary.
Right, norinew had taught her to come to mommy. Keeping the lines of communication open is critical. Had she gotten angry with the child (“What were you thinking?!”), it’s likely that mudgirl would eventually learn not to tell mommy things that would get her in trouble. Then, incidents like this wouldn’t come to light at all or only after the situation had become far more dire.
IMO developing thinking skills is like lifting weights: the more you do it, the stronger you get. Too often people look at children like they’re passive little tabulae rasae who can only know what you write on them. Language acquisition ought to prove that we’re born with the wiring to learn complicated stuff from a very early age.
I read a quote once, something like: “Youth is a state of continual drunkenness…it is the dawning of the ability to reason.” Little babies want to experience the world; you show them the rattle and shake it because to an adult, those are the important features. But they have to put it in their mouth because they’re taking it in with all their senses. They’re little learning machines, their brains in something like a stupor trying to take it all in. I imagine that’s driven by the idea that the faster we learn, the more likely we are to survive.
I worked with a woman whose son was always trying daredevil stunts as a kid. Once, when he was maybe 10, unbeknownst to her, he had made “wings” from sticks of wood, garbage bags, and tape. She heard a groan outside and went to look. He had jumped off the garage and fallen like a stone. She said, “Now you know why that didn’t work, right?”
He replied, “Yeah, I wasn’t high enough.” :smack: But obviously the kid had the fire to learn—he wanted to use his brain so he could fly and was willing to take a big risk to test his theory. The trick is first not to discourage him from trying to learn and second to harness it with some realistic feedback and guidance. BTW she told me he was in CA at the time of the earthquake (1988?) in a parking garage. He said, “I looked up and the ceiling was cracking, cars were moving…” and she said, “You got out of there, right?” No, he was too fascinated by it all. :smack:
I think there are areas besides staying safe from predators that kids need to learn. One that overlaps would be setting boundaries in relationships. I’d like to keep Samantha (my imaginary daughter) out of codependent relationships when she starts dating, for instance. I’d like her to learn that some people who are nice to your face will stab you in the back. I’d like her to learn that not making the cheerleading squad isn’t the end of the world.
Another would be that many people would love to separate them from their money. No, those X-Ray specs don’t work and read the fine print because the shipping and handling is $7. Later on this would hopefully morph into things that keep the grown child from drowing in credit card debt or losing the house because the ARM expired etc.
First, kids need to approach situations with a healthy amount of skepticism and develop logical skills to try to predict things like cause and effect. As they get older the lessons become more complex but like lifting weights, you can’t do it for them and expect them to get stronger…you’re the spotter. IMO the sooner they start, the better.
When my son was 5ish, we had the infamous “Dinosaur oatmeal” experiment. He’d seen an advertisement for instant oatmeal with “Real Hatching Dinosaur Eggs!!!” complete with cavorting cartoon dinosaurs leaping out of the cereal bowl and dancing around the wide eyed cherub in the commercial. Several days of saying no and explaining the advertising industry yielded nothing but a whiny kid. So I found him some extra chores to do, paid him, and then let him buy a box. His face when he poured the hot water in and these little grey sugar pebbles slowly dissolved to reveal a smear of food coloring and gelatin…priceless, man. And much more effective than my lecturing. And so from then on, he was able to consider advertising more critically, considering whether what he saw was too good to believe, or worth spending hard earned money on.
I think you’re taking a perverse pleasure in this failure, WhyNot. And I understand completely! 
Yeah, I think you hit that lesson out of the park. ^5!
To be fair, I don’t believe the textbook included the graph. I believe the textbook merely stated two factors to consider in evaluating a poem, and Williams graphed them to satirize what he considered to be an overly mechanical outlook.
Oh, it may not have had the picture of a graph, but the intent of one was pretty clear:
Why can’t you?
For the same reason that Analyizing jokes isn’t funny.
(FWIW, DPS is one of my favorite movies of all time)
Right…but if you do analyze jokes, they may not make you laugh, but you’ll be able to come up with a theory of humor.
If you analyze poetry, you’ll learn what makes good poems good and bad poems bad.
Well, mostly because the graph points themselves are entirely subjective. Is the objective of Sylvia Plath’s “Daddy” artfully rendered? First, tell me what the “objective” of it is, and then tell me what “artfully” means, and then…well, then we can still disagree entirely as to whether or not it was rendered successfully.
Same with “importance”. I can assure you that my life would not be lessened without the influence of Hedwig Gorski’s poetry. Other people, apparently, find her work very important. Good ol’ Sylvia was extremely important to me when I was a teenager. Now…not so much.
Graphs work when things are objective. Poetry “works” due to subjective standards. I can make graphs according to my subjective impressions of artfulness and importance, but they probably won’t look anything like yours (or even my own of 15 years ago.)
Well, you guys do know what “acting” and “poetry” were thinly disguised metaphors for smoking pole, right?
The movie doesn’t make any sense otherwise.
The story had to have a tragic ending, for the sake of poignancy. But, IRL, I doubt there are many teenage suicides attributable to teachers encouraging students to think for themselves. Even in this story, the student’s father, not his teacher, was to blame for his suicide.
It’s the kind of asshole role Kurtwood Smith seems to specialize in, BTW. Every time I watch That '70s Show I want to beat Red Foreman with a club.
Because art is subjective. What you may consider a wonderful piece of art I may consider a piece of crap. It doesn’t mean you’re right or I’m wrong, just that different art appeals to different tastes. I happen to think Josephine Wall does amazing work. You may not.
I happen to think the greater the artist, the more consensus there is as to the quality of their work (Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, etc.) But what makes them great? That’s not so easy to define.
Meanwhile, no matter what language you speak, two + two will always = 4.
Excuse me? Four? Lady, 2+2 = 11. Always.
ETA: Ohhhhh. You’re probably one of those base-10 people. Never mind, 4 is an acceptable answer.
*offers to smack **VarlosZ *over the head with a wet trout 11 times in whatever base he prefers
Dude, 10 + 10 = 100, not 11.
Whether you like a piece of art or not is subjective, and how it affects you is subjective. But you can still judge art on its technical merits.