HS Comments on the Fly

T. R. Fehrenbach wrote a short commentary on the education of journalists, but I think it can apply to people in general who are serious about education … you know, like homeschoolers.

A degree in journalism can help you get a job and teach you some skills but the best journalists, I think, have degrees in history, economics, philosophy, English, or science.

Education has little to do with making a living; a great deal to do with understanding the species and the cosmos. We tend to mistake trade-school training (law, medicine, journalism) for education. Nor is education information that can be Googled….

You’ve heard that one before, right? You know, it’s similar to that old saying that goes something like, “Education is not about learning how to make a living, but about learning how to live.”

A good editor should never be unread in Shakespeare, the Iliad or the Bible.

I’d add in mythology, too. I’m sure there are more topics to add in, but our society seems to be riddled with mythological references. I think you could just buy a copy of The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy to cover the topic of mythological references for a teen. If the goal is to get the main mythological references, I think it might be overkill to have them read Hamilton’s Mythology, though one of my students did and I was required to in high school.

The journalist unschooled in science [who writes about] science or the reporter on politics who has never read Machiavelli are often the blind misleading the blind.

Ha. Good use of misleading, huh?

And that last quote, my friends, is why I don’t write about politics — I’ve never read Machiavelli. Nor do I intend to. But these two books do look good: What Would Machiavelli Do: The Ends Justify the Meanness and Ross King’s biography of Machiavelli. There are so many books I want to read. I wish authors would just take a break so that I could catch up.

T. R. Fehrenbach’s complete commentary can be read online.

BBC1 has developed a mini-series called Cranford. It is based on Cranford by Elizabeth Gaskell which I was reading earlier this year. It got so depressing … what with a lot a dying and lost love … that I couldn’t bear it and put the book down and have not picked it back up.

I would like to say that the mini-series is more upbeat, but it really isn’t. It doesn’t go into the detail the book does, so I’m not left weeping. However, I’m still seeing lots of death and sadness. The good news is, though, that Imelda Staunton as Miss Pole has me laughing so hard that I’m spewing hot chocolate. It’s actually best that I don’t eat while I watch it. I do wonder, though, if she actually intended to say “renumeration” instead of “remuneration.” Or maybe I just heard it wrong.

I watched it Saturday night on YouTube.com in 10-minute increments. It’s a bit trying to watch it in such short bits, but I otherwise wouldn’t be able to see it for a few years, I imagine. It’s just now showing on British TV and isn’t on DVD yet. It’s not on BBC America yet either. But it’s worth buying, so we’ll probably buy it when it comes out.

I’m dying to see episode 5. I hope someone uploads it to YouTube in the next couple of days. The rest of the family watched it Sunday evening, and I rewatched bits of it. It’s very well done. It’s about a very small town basically run by older women, some of whom believe that men in a home just get in the way. Men come and go, but the leading ladies in the town aren’t married. The town has various trouble and events — things like a garden party, railroad issues, new doctor, amputation, young love, old-and-wrinkled love, the croup, gypsies, problems with the help, a sickly sister, proposals, visitors, the cat that ate the lace made by nuns, hair dying with indigo, etc., etc., etc. Victoria is the Queen, and it’s set in the early 1840s up near Manchester, England.

My only student has now picked up the book and is reading it. And, of course, this is homeschool related. It’s a mini-series based on classic literature and has inspired my student to read the literature. So. There ya’ go. Of course, she’s already completed all of her literature credits and should be focusing on science, but I’ll turn a blind eye. It’s not like the US didn’t win the space race, right? Sputnik causes no fear these days.

In an effort of full disclosure, here’s what I wrote back on 01-DEC-06:

I’m reading Cranford by Elizabeth Gaskell. I spent some quality time with it while waiting for Costco to balance and rotate my tires. I sat in the food court. I felt a little self-conscious while laughing at the funny bits though. I’m surprised that it’s as amusing as it is. I mean how can two townspeople fighting over the literary talents of Samuel Johnson and Mr. Boz be amusing? I don’t know, but it is.

It’s a story about life in a fictional small town in England in the mid-1800s. It’s slow; it’s not like The DaVinci Code. It’s simple and yet complex. You have to pay attention, though, sort of like watching Michael Kitchen’s face as Foyle, or you’ll miss the humor. Maybe I should spell it humour since it is British humor.

Gaskell also wrote North and South and Wives and Daughters. I’ve not read those; I’ve only watched the DVDs. I’m reading Cranford because I picked up a lovely little vintage copy at a booksale, and I grabbed it off the shelf on the way out of the house knowing I’d be stuck waiting on my tires.

Oh, wanna hear what’s on the back cover of our newer softcover version?

Elizabeth Gaskell’s comic portrait of early Victorian life in a country town describes with poignant wit the uneventful lives of its lady-like inhabitants, offering and ironic commentary on the separate spheres and diverse experiences of men and women. As the external world necessarily impinges even on Cranford, the unlikely juxtapositions of old and new brought about by the pace of change are also explored: the effect of Victorian commerce and imperial expansion co-exist with the survival of customs and habits of thought from much earlier times.

Yeah. So there.

Go get some hot chocolate and a cozy blanket and start watching it on YouTube now. It will give you a little peaceful diversion after a long day of homeschooling and momming. My advice: Do not delay. Things have a way of disappearing off of YouTube pretty quickly in some cases.

UPDATE: Episode 5 is now up!

Since I have been lacking inspiration lately, I went and dredged this entry up out of my old archives from 2003. I had recently read The Odyssey aloud to my students.

I re-found this really irreverent classics site while trying to find something else. Perfessr writes,

Homer is also the Emily Post of antiquity. The Odyssey is nothing if not a book about manners. In a world without law or government, the guest relationship is all-important. There were certain rules to be followed among the nobility, and the moral person was above all a good host. Martha Stewart has nothing over King Nestor, except possibly her strawberry tortes.

Many others have mentioned Greek hospitality (as described in Homer’s works) as being a theme of the poems. We have been noticing it, too, over and over again while reading The Odyssey.

At one point (can’t remember which book or even who), we were surprised that a stranger had to be fed and wined before the host could even ask him why he had decided to visit. Can you imagine? Also, it seems that you were supposed to send your guests off with gifts when they left — not a bad idea, but a little costly if you’re not careful.

In Book XV (Rieu trans.) Menelaus says to Telemachus, “I condemn any host who is either too kind or not kind enough. There should be moderation in all things, and it is equally offensive to speed a guest who would like to stay and to detain one who is anxious to leave. What I say is, treat a man well while he’s with you, but let him go when he wishes.” Okay. Fine. But what about those nasty freeloaders–the Suitors? Hmmm? Frankly, I think they abused the hospitality offered them. Why didn’t the laws of hospitality allow them to be booted on out of there?

And what about Hyperion? Why was it okay for him to withhold his sheep and cows from the weary travelers? But, you know, Polyphemus was the worst. He gobbled up his guests and washed them down with milk. Yeah, it doesn’t get much worse than that.

Oh, yeah, and we also read Perfessr’s column entitled, “Choose Your Truth” after we read Euthyphro and were shocked by how “the great Socrates” acted.

100 Books Your Child Should Hear Before Starting School

I found this list by clicking through from Painted Rainbows and Chamomile Tea.

I think it’s just stoopid to put “should” in the title of the list. Possibly “might” would be a better word.

OR … wait for it … maybe the could produce a flyer that helps parents and children choose books all by themselves instead to fostering dependence.
Maybe the flyer could state:

• See the shelves (or bins) in the E section? Look through them and pick out some books that look interesting. (After all, why couldn’t any one of those books be a good book?)
• Parents should pick out some books that appeal to them personally because the parent may get to read it a few times if the child enjoys the book a lot.
• Buy books for your child and give the child unlimited access even if it’s a really nice book. If the book gets rough around the edges or falls apart, buy another.
• Not all children like to hear the same story over and over again.
• If the child is not enjoying the book, find another.
• Look for books that evoke happiness, peace, and wonder, ones with lovely illustrations and engaging characters. Reading should be enjoyable.
• The goal is to raise a person who, as an adult, enjoys reading — novels, newspapers, travelogues, how-to books, reports, history books. So try to make all reading experiences with your child enjoyable. Give them happy memories of trips to the library or bookstore with their parents. Give them warm memories of you, the parent, reading books aloud to them on the couch, in bed right before lights out, or out on a summer day in the shady hammock. If they are happy while reading, it will be a feeling that they will want to duplicate as the years go by which will result in a person who ends up loving to read.

One thing that really bugs me about the book list is that some of these books will be enjoyed more (or again) after a child is school age. Just because a book is listed on List A to be read during grade 1 doesn’t mean a 3rd grader may not enjoy the book also. Putting limits on when a person should read a book is foolish.

I know that we didn’t do the Macaulay books (City, Castle, Pyramid, Mosque) when the homeschooling catalogs said we should at around 9 years old. My oldest read City around age 14. We had already studied Rome a few times by then and so the info in City was easily assimilated and had a deeper meaning. If he’d read that book at age 9, he’d never pick it up again later, which is sad since it’s a great book on city planning — great light reading for a high schooler who may be considering engineering. Timing. It’s really important, but getting it right is a matter of serendipity, really. The only reason that City didn’t get read earlier is because I didn’t see it at the library and couldn’t afford it in addition to all the other books we truly needed. I finally found it at a library sale. You see, it wasn’t about sticking to a reading list; it was just how things turned out.

Ack. I just realized that I’ve already written an entry like this. Create Your Own Classics aka Skip Twist. Repeating oneself, a sure sign of getting old. I should be doing crossword puzzles to stave off Alzheimer’s, but crossword puzzles just make me cross.

Anyway, my point, lest I get lost in old-age-induced digressions, is: We can’t let self-proclaimed experts tell us what books need to be read when as if we are too stupid to figure that out for ourselves. A list may be a good starting point, but it shouldn’t be allowed to dictate our reading choices. If we do give it that type of power over us, we are limiting ourselves and our children — and sometimes just wasting our time on drivel-filled books.

But, back to that list for just a second. I do not understand why some books are on that list. I never read my kids Where the Wild Things Are. Teachers and librarians read that book to me incessantly when I was very young. I hated that story. It was creepy and gave me nightmares and made me afraid to go to bed at night.

Here’s how Amazon.com describes the book comments in [] are mine:

Where the Wild Things Are is one of those truly rare books that can be enjoyed equally by a child and a grown-up. If you disagree, then it’s been too long since you’ve attended a wild rumpus. [That’s me! Wild rumpus free for years and proud of it.] Max dons his wolf suit in pursuit of some mischief and gets sent to bed without supper. [Hey, that would be awful. Why scare kids with denial of food?] Fortuitously [Oh, yeah, lucky me], a forest grows in his room, [um … scary] allowing his wild rampage to continue unimpaired. Sendak’s color illustrations (perhaps his finest) are beautiful, and each turn of the page brings the discovery of a new wonder.

The wild things — with their mismatched parts and giant eyes [teeth, claws, fangs] — manage somehow to be scary-looking without ever really being scary; [Um … they are too scary!] at times they’re downright hilarious. [No, they’re not hilarious; they’re creepy.] Sendak’s defiantly run-on sentences [Oh, yeah, let’s teach the children well by using bad grammar defiantly] — one of his trademarks — lend the perfect touch of stream of consciousness to the tale, which floats between the land of dreams [I’ll make my own dreams, please.] and a child’s imagination.

This Sendak [non] classic is more fun than you’ve ever had in a wolf suit [Only wolves and werewolves have fun in wolf suits.], and it manages to reaffirm the notion that there’s no place like home. [There’s no place like home? That’s what Dorothy said after her scary time with the flying monkeys and witch. At least she got to make her own dream.]

Don’t you just want to buy a copy of your own?

We watched An Ideal Husband today, laughing at Wilde’s wit and enjoying the actors. We like Wilde much better than Shaw, but I guess that is only based on Heartbreak House, The Importance of Being Earnest, and An Ideal Husband. So, that’s a rather flimsy opinion.

An Ideal Husband, though, isn’t as good as The Importance of Being Earnest, which is also by Wilde. An Ideal Husband is a bit of a morality tale — which isn’t bad in itself, but it not inherently amusing. One lesson: “No one should be entirely judged by their past.” And another: “Sooner or later we have all to pay for what we do.”

The Importance of Being Earnest, with its identity twists, is by far more entertaining than An Ideal Husband. There are also many more quotes that can be stolen and used in everyday life, much to the amusement of oneself and one’s knowledgeable companions. However, you only sound crazy saying something like, “I couldn’t find any cucumbers at the store today — “… not even for ready money” to someone who’s never seen the movie.

Link to An Ideal Husband (Cate Blanchett, Julianne Moore, Rupert Everett, Jeremy Northam, Minnie Driver)

Link to The Importance of Being Earnest (Colin Firth, Reece Witherspoon, Rupert Everett, Frances O’Connor, Judi Dench)

I won’t link to Heartbreak House by Shaw because I think it’s not worth the effort. My apologies to Shaw fans.

	actors rehearsing fight scene before the play

We did manage to see The Merry Wives of Windsor. Will Shakespeare’s play … not Camilla and the Queen. Well, I’m assuming Millie and Betty are merry, but I don’t actually know.
It was enjoyable — a pleasant bit of fiction.

This acting company continues to delight us summer after summer. Most productions* of Shakespeare fail to entertain — possibly because the actors take themselves or Shakespeare too seriously. But the group that performs here each summer ENTERTAINS! I’m not sure why this group is so much fun to watch year after year. Some credit must go to the director, Joel Jahnke, and some must go to the playwright. However, I tend to think that the actors must shoulder the lion’s share of the blame when it comes to audience satisfaction. They put on a good show.

The Merry Wives of Windsor is about Falstaff and his crazy plan to woo two married women — Mistresses Ford and Page. Falstaff, a retired knight, must put up with interference from one of the husband’s wives. Another story line is the wooing of Anne Page (daughter of one of the merry wives) by three men, two of which are patently ridiculous yet preferred by her parents. There are plenty of laughs, scheming, disguises, and swordplay.

We don’t get the full text of Shakespeare’s play. That might be a bit of a negative, however, I think that’s done because there’s only so much time in an evening. Also, I think that part of the goal is to make Shakespeare accessible to those who’ve not had much contact with his works elsewhere. I don’t think Shakespeare would mind a bit. I think he’d poke fun of the cult that has formed around his works as if his plays are part of some sort of holy folio handed down from Clio, Melpomene, and Thalia. The goal is to enjoy Shakespeare. The actors look like they’re having a good time on stage, and it’s obvious to the audience, which also ends up having a good time.

Here’s a photo. Left to right: Andrew Truschinski as Master Page, Jordan Ahnquist as Sir Evans, Michael Gonring as Master Slender, and Ian Andersen as Nym.

I wish I had a picture of the merry wives to share since that’s who the play’s named for. I taped about half an hour of the play on my camera instead of taking pictures so that we could watch a bit at home and compare it to the actual text. Jennefer Ludwigsen was just so cute as the smiling Mistress Ford. If you want to see her act, I believe she was a server/waitress on Desperate Housewives (Disc 5 of Season 1, Episode 19). I think it’s just a teeny tiny part; I’ve got it in my Netflix queue to watch soon.

Hmmm. Well, I really got off topic there at the end, didn’t I?

* Excluding Kenneth Branagh’s brilliant productions, of course!

Author and Austen fan, David Lassman, submitted three of Jane’s novels (including Pride and Prejudice under the title of First Impressions with the characters’ names changed) and the classic novels were rejected over and over again by big-name publishers like Penguin, Random House, Harper Collins, and Simon & Schuster.

Was it because of plagiarism? No, only once was Austen’s work recognized.

Read the article yourself. It’s startling.

But it’s only startling for a second because once you think about it, Pride and Prejudice, while being a good story, is not written in the language of today. It’s a classic because of its popularity in the early 1800s not because it’s easy reading for today.

Language changes. Chaucer would get rejected today also.

But wait … would you recognize the novels Lassman submitted? They were Pride and Prejudice, Northanger Abbey, and Persuasion. I wouldn’t have recognized Northanger Abbey.

There may still be time to catch your local Shakespeare in the Park play. Run, don’t walk, to your nearest search engine and type in “your town” (or nearby city) and “Shakespeare in the Park” and see what pops up. Hopefully, you’ll still have time to enjoy a little Shakespeare with your kids. I was shocked the first time we went at how enjoyable it was.

If you want one of those handy lists that proves that we still use Shakespeare’s words daily (or at least weekly), here ya’ go:

List #1 at PathGuy.com

List #2 at CummingsStudyGuides.net

Yes, “… the funeral pyre for thought in America today….”

That’s what the bookstore owner said as began torching his pile of unwanted books.

He’s got a pile of 20,000 books that he can’t sell and can’t give away to the library or thrift stores. Tom Wayne, bookstore owner in Kansas City, Missouri, is lamenting the demise of “The Reader.”

The humorous twist to this story is that the pyro-biblio-maniac didn’t get a burning permit, and the fire department came and doused his bonfire before it was even an hour old. Tom Wayne, though, plans another book burning next month. Read the story here.

You know that book Fahrenheit 451? You know, the one with all the book burning. It was authored by Ray Bradbury who gave us this quote:

“You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.”

I think that’s where we’re at that point these days. Of course, there are exceptions; homeschoolers come to mind as one exception because many of us tend to read a lot. It’s rather a sad commentary, but I don’t think one can hold back the tide. Maybe homeschoolers are the little Dutch boy at the dike. One thing’s for sure, our culture is definitely changing when it comes to reading.

Do I recommend Fahrenheit 451 as a good read? Sure. Why not? I read it aloud to my two students when they were in their teens. It made for some good discussions. But we slogged through parts of it, so it wasn’t completely gripping. We used a Cliff Notes guide as we went through it. It was as good as any other “message” novel, I suppose, you know, the ones that have a message and are labeled literature and get put on reading lists compiled by academics. It was a bit of a cautionary tale warning folks about the misuse of television, I believe. I don’t think that Bradbury envisioned WoW and other video games, which also seem to pull people away from books.

Gary listed me on HomeschoolBuzz, and I listed him over on the left.

Another administrative bit of news: I’m going to leave comments on for a short period of time … like a few days. Comment s-p-a-m is troublesome and leaving comments open for too long encourages it.

Surprisingly enough, it snowed for about 6 hours earlier this week. And it stuck on the ground, too. My husband thought we had about 2 inches. It was big and fluffy and is now gone. May 22. Snow. Wow. I got a sunburn over the weekend, and it seemed very strange to be nursing a sunburn with snow on the ground.

I received a Mother’s Day gift of North & South the other day. It’s a film adaptation of Gaskell’s book, which I’ve not read. I have read most of Cranford, by the same author, but too many people died, leaving me sad, so I quit reading it. But North & South is a pleasant bit of fiction–for the most part. The gentleman, Richard Armitage, who plays Guy of Gisbourne in the most recent Robin Hood series is the male lead in North & South. It’s rather amusing to compare his performances. I have a difficult time seeing him as evil in Robin Hood — no matter his menacing deeds — because he seems like mostly a “good guy” in North & South.

Gaskell also wrote Wives & Daughters. I’ve got the book here on the bookcase next to my desk waiting to be read. I can’t remember if my daughter’s read it yet. The movie version is fine. Best line: “I’m not saying she was very silly. But one of us was silly, and it wasn’t me.” All the actors are enjoyable to watch; it’s a good cast. We saw the actor who plays Roger Hamley in a West End production, but we couldn’t see him very well without the opera glasses because we were up in the balcony.

Anyway, I’m blathering on. And not an awfully lot about homeschooling … well, I guess it is “Literature,” isn’t it?