[FOOT] I (heart) Novels

I love technology. I really do. And while I love this article, and I think it's great people are writing, this is not literature. In any form. This is whiny a group of people with self-esteem issues writing their diaries in public and getting paid for it. Yes, it's real in every way, but people are also aware of that now, so they'll fluff up their own stories.

Sure, the first girls story is cool, Mone. It had a sense of authenticity to it. And it was admitted to be this stream of consciousness diary. Which it is. And that's it.

I understand the times are changing and writing will be done in different ways, but there is a difference between spilling your guts on your phone and writing a piece of literature. It's different mental processes. The former allows lax writing abilities to pass as worthwhile, when all it does is hinder language from its most complex intricacies that make literature so worthwhile in the first place. The latter forces the creative insides come out and to use language in a way that is interesting and forces people to view things differently.

Leave diaries in 13 year old's closets.

Cool Education Reform Video

Definitely worth your 11 minutes of time. Focuses on the problem of our factory-like education system and how it's outdated in its approach and the problems within the way we standardize and don't focus on application enough.

[Foot] Great Films Post: Film Theory and Censorship

With so much in 129 pages, I chose two different sections of interest to focus on: The first is a brief overview of Film Theory and the second being Censorship.

(A brief history of Film Censorship. View a larger version here.)

Having seen several of the films listed during the first paragraph of movies that were censored in schools during the first wave of censorship, I honestly wasn't that surprised. Two of the films that I had seen that were listed were The Lottery and Bonnie and Clyde. The first of these I can definitely see being censored in a school. The film is based off the short story by Shirley Jackson and is, to be frank, quite gruesome. Being a short story, it doesn't offer much insight into the actual thematic details that a longer novella or novel could offer on the consequences and intricacies of the The Lottery. Instead, in its short length, it is just a haunting piece of shocking literature with little appetite for more depth. While an interesting discussion, it's basically the story of stoning someone to death for tradition's sake, so banning the film version of this does not surprise me. The second film, Bonnie and Clyde, is the story of the famous crime duo. While most of the film is just about that, the last scene of the movie is overbearingly bloody. This scene alone I could see being reason for it being banned in schools.

The section goes on to talk about the history of censorship and the basic fights for and against it, but not in too much detail, and were fairly obvious. Those for were parents who felt they should have a say, those against fought using the first amendment. Nothing was a surprise in either of these statements. But, this did get me thinking about my own view on censorship in the classroom for film and literature.

During our discussions on censorship in all of my education classes, I have staunchly fought against almost every single case of censoring a book citing the educational process in some way or that it isn't really all that touchy of a subject or something of that nature. The point being, I have always been very against censoring a teacher's choices in literature. But I'm now contradicting that ideal I've had by agreeing with these censorships. I definitely think both those films are rightfully censored. They're gruesome and serve no educational purpose from them. But does this mean that my viewpoint is skewed when it comes to literature? Or is there truly a distinct difference between the films and the literature I support?

I don't actually have the answers to these questions, but I'm definitely contemplating them these days. If I see the legitimacy in film censorship, what differentiates it from literature censorship?

Currently, my main argument rests on the difference between visual stimulation and written word. The way a film portrays something visually has a defined and concrete image to it, forcing it to be offensive if it hits the right emotive spots. Language, on the other hand, is a bit more amorphous than that. But then what about something like the Huck Finn censorship?

Is the word nigger automatically offense like a bloddy scene at the end of Bonnie and Clyde? I currently don't think so, but I definitely need to reevaluate that.

---------

In the section on Film Theory, I was most drawn to Marixsm, which focused on film in an idealogical manner and believed that it was an "instrument for social change" (pg. 66, Costanzo) Because of my main focus on literature, I most relate to this because it is how I view literature. By viewing film in this way, it shows how the writers, producers, and everyone else in the film reflect a current state of social norms or a revolt against them. Even in fictionally based films, they reflect their time period and are used to help perpetuate or change society itself.

I find this to be a very applicable and relatable angle to view film because it's also an important aspect of literature. By using images, film can give a more vivid view of life and really strike an audience member in a different, and perhaps stronger, manner than words can. These can help move the wheels of social change or help keep them stagnant. The marxist focus on how images evoke emotions plays well into affecting social roles and norms because it will help motivate people to think in a certain way because it is focused on exactly that.

What I am not sure of is how a marxist point of view would see documentaries, since they are directly meant to influence social change. Are they just the ultimate purpose of a marxist film critic, perhaps? I guess I'd have to study more film from critical view points to have a better understanding of this.

Several of the other theories interested me, such as Realism/Antirealism and semiotics, but didn't seem to delve too deep into them. In fact, most of the chapter felt very uninspired to me. Having read entire books on critical literary theory, I really wanted more information on each theory and how it works and famous criticizers of each theory, etc. Some of the more popular ones like Feminist, Psychoanalytic, and Cultural Studies got a full page or so, but it didn't even delve into the intricacies enough.

I think that all of this information can be applied in the classroom, though. Just like literary theory, film theory is putting on a particular lens and looking at a piece of work through it and then analyzing it using that perspective. Perhaps this "light" version of each lens is enough information to use directly with a high school student to get them thinking in different ways about films. I'll definitely be holding onto this book and have a sticky note on this section for future use in the classroom if/when I show a film and to hopefully help stimulate student thought in different manners.

[PYTASH] Chapter 5

Using song lyrics as poetry is one of the simplest concepts that seems to be overlooked by teachers. Not that the top 40 has the greatest lyrics going on right now, but that could also be something worthwhile to study -- the downfall of poetic justice popular culture gives to a listener.

The positive attitude she goes into it all with is also a key point I think is overlooked by a lot of teachers. I think a lot of teachers think to themselves "oh, the students are going to hate this, but I have to do it" and that ruins the unit for the students because the teacher isn't rubbing off their passion for the content onto the students. While a small part of the chapter, I think it's important to take note of her positive attitude.

The way she read the poems was: Poem->background information. Whereas with literature, it is often the background first. This is actually a solid idea. I can read about a poet and poem's background all I want, but if I don't know what it's about or understand the literary techniques employed, then it will go in one ear and out the other. By giving me the content first, I'll be able to interpret the poem and understand it and then get some background on it to reenforce or reshape my view on its meaning.

[PYTASH] Chapter 3

The amount of books a student should read. Oh, my. Reading this chapter as a student in high school, I would have wanted to hunt the author down and disfigure her. As a pre-service teacher, though? No. In fact, I agree. While students do have extra curricular activities and other classes, I remember in my regular high school English classes it would take almost an entire month, if not longer, to read a single book. We continue to bring standards down and coddle the readers by having them only read one or two chapters per night, when we need to get them to be able to consume a larger amount of literature in one dose to even bother getting to real critical thought and intellectual growth. While Jago may have it a bit extreme at 20 books for her sophomore class, at least she is pushing against the norm of maybe 3-5 in a semester like it was in my school, which simply isn't enough.

There definitely needs to be some balance, and students need to be given the opportunity for critical thought, too. By reading 20 books, students may be flying through the books so fast, they don't have the time to actual stop and smell the literature for its beauty and take their thinking to deeper levels. There are more factors than just English class needs, but I definitely have to take Jago's side on the matter.

[PYTASH] Chapter 1

At this point, the classics vs. young adult literature debate is more than belabored as we have discussed this quite a bit during our education classes in the past. Jago's view on YA lit. actually surprises me and I wonder how this view will continue to show through the book. While in our class last semester, the author had a more liberal view on the matter, Jago is stern believer in using the classics to learn and YA is simply pleasure reading. I definitely agree with this, but not to the extent she seems to in the way she voices her opinion on it.

I would love to spend the entire year studying the classics in a high school classroom, but students simply aren't interested in it enough. There needs to be a way to hook them in. Themes don't change over the years. We're still the same humans dealing with the same identity struggle we always have. There will always be a contemporary piece that reflects well the same thematic concepts of a classic that would interest the reader more. You can then pair it with a classic and get them interested in both stories as they are similar and they'll see the worthwhileness of the one they're not interested in.

[FOOT] The Socially Networked Classroom (sort of)

Didn't get too far into this yet, but I'm super stoked on its presentation and the models its using. It's an extremely informative book thus far, and isn't cumbersome, as a lot of textbooks are. It's forward thinking in what it's trying to utilize to bring a classroom together. I didn't think I'd ever run across a book that actually understands the power behind Web 2.0 tools. Albeit it's already falling behind with new technologies coming out, but I'm not here to discredit it -- the book is spot on for what we as burgeoning teachers need. It is useful in integrating tech such as Facebook and Twitter into the classroom, which may make the students feel more at home. I still have a lot more to consume in the book before I could have something worthwhile to say, but I'll at least get this up here.