You know what doesn't really grind my gears?

[ScottNUMBERS]

Family Guy, 'cause it's freaking awesome.

I want to see your rants about stuff that ails your gears in a way that is grinding. There are many things that grind on my gears and could probably go on for ages with this crap, and for that very reason I better end this sentence right now before I start ranting about how much stuff I could rant about. Stuff that irritates me :monster::

Smoking. Wtf (<-extreme emphasis on this acronym right here) is that about?

"Hello can you give me some cancer later on in life please, oh and make me smell bad too."
"Sure, but in exchange I want all your moniez"
"You got yourself a deal brother!"

Stupidity beyond the deepest reaches of my comprehension.

Christianity (or in fact any religion) taught in Schools. When I was much more young and naive they almost got me to believe in that crap. School is supposed to educate children, not brainwash them.

Strangely enough in early years of school the teachers get children to play a game called "chinese whisper" (I'm sure I don't need to explain this game to you) which was supposed to teach children not to believe tales passed on from one person to another to another - contradicting much? And do you remember there was always that idiot who would completely change what ever the person said to them before he passed it to you? The Jesus of chinese whisper no less.

The wheather on the news. Why don't people realise that they go through every possible outcome? It's like; "It might rain or it could be sunny now I shall proceed to wave my hands around this fancy map of England and I'll be sure to bend over so you can look at my ass to distract you from the fact that I am talking absolute testicles that was the wheather back to you Jim." "Thanks Heidi you filthy whore, we should totally make out after we finish broadcasting btw."

Now you go. :love:

[drotato]

Hehehe. I'm watching Family Guy right now. :kaohappy:

[LunarWeaver]

I really hate when a customer yells at the wrong person. Like, you're standing in line at the theater and they freak out on the employee at the cash register for the high prices of stuff. Does that person own the place? Do they have anything to do with the fact the salt on your popcorn costs a piece of your soul per grain? No, it's not their fault. Yet they have to smile and apologize to you, and then go on their break and bitch about how awful the human race is and then go home and kill their parents and burn themselves alive. Thank a lot, Mr. Complainer, you have caused havoc. Drama included in this paragraph for free.

[Psychotic]

People who discuss religion, the existance of god and so on and so forth on the internet. I don't care if you're a Christian or if you're an atheist. You're all idiots and I don't want to see that :skull::skull::skull::skull: because it's circular, stupid and accomplishes nothing. Let people believe whatever the hell they want and stop acting like you're superior to them because you're all equal - equally stupid. I kinda used to consider myself to be an atheist, but because of the way some of them act online - like whiny sons of bitches - I've decided I'm not one anymore. It's not that I think god doesn't exist, it's that I don't care if God exists. Even if there was conclusive proof that he did or did not exist released tomorrow, I wouldn't change how I acted in the slightest. Right now, I'd probably be going to Hell if you want to go by the Christian view of it all, because lying is awesome. I am a turkey! See? Hellbound. Anyway, if it turns out he does exist, well, I couldn't be bothered to live my life how he wants it to be lived. I mean sure, he created me, but I'll buy him a pint in the afterlife to show my appreciation for it and I think he'd be cool with it.

[drotato]

People who discuss religion, the existance of god and so on and so forth on the internet. I don't care if you're a Christian or if you're an atheist. You're all idiots and I don't want to see that :skull::skull::skull::skull: because it's circular, stupid and accomplishes nothing. Let people believe whatever the hell they want and stop acting like you're superior to them because you're all equal - equally stupid. I kinda used to consider myself to be an atheist, but because of the way some of them act online - like whiny sons of bitches - I've decided I'm not one anymore. It's not that I think god doesn't exist, it's that I don't care if God exists. Even if there was conclusive proof that he did or did not exist released tomorrow, I wouldn't change how I acted in the slightest. Right now, I'd probably be going to Hell if you want to go by the Christian view of it all, because lying is awesome. I am a turkey! See? Hellbound. Anyway, if it turns out he does exist, well, I couldn't be bothered to live my life how he wants it to be lived. I mean sure, he created me, but I'll buy him a pint in the afterlife to show my appreciation for it and I think he'd be cool with it.

Haha, that made me laugh. =D

[scrumpleberry]

Christianity (or in fact any religion) taught in Schools. When I was much more young and naive they almost got me to believe in that crap. School is supposed to educate children, not brainwash them.


My third school used to be a nunnery. They actually got me to be a self-proclaimed "Christian" until I left.

p.s. Psy wins.

[Cookie]

Lu Bu.

[~*~Celes~*~]

When someone's mad, makes it obvious that they are by their body language, and then doesn't tell me why...even though they want me to see that they're mad.

[Old Manus]

I wrote this a few years ago when I was at my wits end with being forced to do English Literature. I got a C in the end. [/wasteoftime]


English Literature is officially the stupidest subject in the galaxy.

Books are meant for a single purpose: To be read. Nothing more. If I was to buy a book, I would read it, and it may take me a few days to a few weeks to complete, depending on time/motivation. Once I'd finished, I would put it on the bookshelf, and there it would gather dust for the next few months/years until I decide to read it again. If, however, I find the book sucks, I stop reading, put it on the bookshelf, and there it would gather dust for the next few years until I decide to sell it or use it as a source of firewood/toilet paper.

What I definately would not do is write around six million pages of endless notes on the characters, themes, thoughts and feelings that are inside the book. Welcome to the wacky world that is English Literature. In this most exciting of subjects you get the privelidge of reading a book around five times a month, making tons of notes and stupid 'Spider Diagrams' on whatever the hell you've just had forced on you, and at the end you get to write even more pages about the book, except this time in the form of answers to vague questions such as 'What are the thoughts and feelings of John Smith throughout Chapt. 3?'. I'm practically wet with excitement.

Case in Point: GCSE study of 'Of Mice And Men'
For a start, why the hell any sane fifteen year-old kid would want to read a seventy year-old novella about two cowboys and their adventure(s?) on a ranch is beyond me. I personally found the book terrifyingly mundane and boring, maybe because of the less than exciting method of having it rammed down our throats for two years to make it 'stick'. It stuck alright, it stuck to serve as one of, if not the most mind-numbingly boring and frustrating experience at school. Whatever anyone says about John Steinbeck and his awesome greatness, this book was not good at all. I didn't like Shakespeare either, but that's another story. English Literature has a way of making the most interesting piece of text so boring you contemplate suicide just to end the nightmare. I'm sure if I had read Of Mice And Men out of my own accord, and when I felt like it, I would have enjoyed it more. But I'm not here to complain about the book, just the subject.

The most annoying thing about English Literature is the fact that you ABSOLUTELY MUST read so much between the lines that suddenly everything loses all meaning and you wonder why the hell you're bothering to analyse this book anyway. For God's sake, it's a book. The characters are fictional. They don't have 'thoughts and feelings'. They don't 'do this because this happened'. It's a figment of the writer's imagination. If you want to find out why John Smith did action X, ask the damn author, because sure as hell he's the only one who has a true idea about what he's writing, yet most of the time you look so deep into the text the author himself will get the urge to slap you in the face and say 'It's only a book'.

For example, a question that sticks in my mind was 'Crooks is introduced in Chapter 4. Why do you think Steinbeck put him into the story?' I don't bloody know, do I? Do I look like I have an inside-out knowledge of Steinbeck's brain complex? I don't think he knows anymore either, seeing as he died about forty years ago. Secondly, why should I care? Why should I care about the (no doubt, very deep) reasoning behind adding a character to some dumb book? How does this improve my understanding of the story? These are all questions you should ask next time you decide to write a 3 page essay on a stupid question about a stupid book. Hopefully pondering this will give you the courage to actually ask your teacher why the hell the subject is on the curriculum, and how it can ever cross anyone's mind to decide to teach this rubbish for the next twenty years. I appreciate that a knowledge of famous literature can help you in some abstract ways, but apart from getting that extra point in your local pub quiz, I see no point in relentlessly poring over these century-old novels and trying to pick out every single meaning behind every single line said by every single character. It's pointless, and stupid.

What skills do you hone when studying this subject? Reading? 'Book Analysis'? I'll tell you what skills you hone with this subject. To make it easier, here it is in list form:


1.


If I want to improve my reading skills, It's none of the curriculum's business how I do it. I read the paper. I read the internet. I occaisonally read books. I do not spend two+ years going through a rainforest of paper to come to one conclusion: Why the hell am I doing this?

Up yours, English Literature.

[snacks]

I agree with psy.
If you don't like religion don't discuss it, chances are a lot of people really don't care.

^_^

What doesn't grind my gears? Halo 2
What does? Snow.

[Captain Maxx Power]

People who discuss religion, the existance of god and so on and so forth on the internet. I don't care if you're a Christian or if you're an atheist. You're all idiots and I don't want to see that :skull::skull::skull::skull: because it's circular, stupid and accomplishes nothing. Let people believe whatever the hell they want and stop acting like you're superior to them because you're all equal - equally stupid. I kinda used to consider myself to be an atheist, but because of the way some of them act online - like whiny sons of bitches - I've decided I'm not one anymore. It's not that I think god doesn't exist, it's that I don't care if God exists. Even if there was conclusive proof that he did or did not exist released tomorrow, I wouldn't change how I acted in the slightest. Right now, I'd probably be going to Hell if you want to go by the Christian view of it all, because lying is awesome. I am a turkey! See? Hellbound. Anyway, if it turns out he does exist, well, I couldn't be bothered to live my life how he wants it to be lived. I mean sure, he created me, but I'll buy him a pint in the afterlife to show my appreciation for it and I think he'd be cool with it.

Psychotic, you have officially gone down several pegs in my book. Seriously, debating religion is an important part of our modern-day lives. It's because of attitudes like that that we have people rampantly using their religion as an excuse to make everyone else's life a misery because nay-sayers find it unnecessary to even bring up the topic simply because they don't feel like it and get antsy whenever anyone else does it.

And that's what grinds my gears. Well today at least.

[Lawr]

Old Manus for the win.

What grinds my gears is my dad. I'm too lazy to tell why.

[KuRt]

my insomnia :mad:

[Zeldy]

One thing that gets on my nerves is bad spelling. Surely, people type or write something and they must see that it is wrong but then they post it anyway, how someone can do that kills me. Myself, If I really cannot get a word to 'look right' ie. spelt properly then I delete it and choose another word, I don't just use the word I can't even spell. My friend once wrote on a Connections form that she would might look into 'gernalism'. I died a little when I read it. ScottNUMBERS, you spelt weather wrong.

Ticking clocks. I know clocks, stereotypically (can you stereotype an object?), tick but oh my god, it is the most annoying thing in existence. I amuse myself by locating a ticking clock at a friends house and tell everyone and they all yell at me cause then they can hear it.

I think English Literature is the best subject ever. Not so much language, that's more analysing words chosen, presentational devices and.. ugh, original writing. I had to analyse stupid Catcher in the Rye though, I wanted to strangle the main character. He said "god damn" so much. "I'm so god damn depressed".

[Roto13]

People who discuss religion, the existance of god and so on and so forth on the internet. I don't care if you're a Christian or if you're an atheist. You're all idiots and I don't want to see that :skull::skull::skull::skull: because it's circular, stupid and accomplishes nothing. Let people believe whatever the hell they want and stop acting like you're superior to them because you're all equal - equally stupid. I kinda used to consider myself to be an atheist, but because of the way some of them act online - like whiny sons of bitches - I've decided I'm not one anymore. It's not that I think god doesn't exist, it's that I don't care if God exists. Even if there was conclusive proof that he did or did not exist released tomorrow, I wouldn't change how I acted in the slightest. Right now, I'd probably be going to Hell if you want to go by the Christian view of it all, because lying is awesome. I am a turkey! See? Hellbound. Anyway, if it turns out he does exist, well, I couldn't be bothered to live my life how he wants it to be lived. I mean sure, he created me, but I'll buy him a pint in the afterlife to show my appreciation for it and I think he'd be cool with it.

Psychotic, you have officially gone down several pegs in my book. Seriously, debating religion is an important part of our modern-day lives. It's because of attitudes like that that we have people rampantly using their religion as an excuse to make everyone else's life a misery because nay-sayers find it unnecessary to even bring up the topic simply because they don't feel like it and get antsy whenever anyone else does it.

And that's what grinds my gears. Well today at least.
See, if religious people were the only ones stuffing their beliefs down people's throats, you'd have a point. However, there are way too many hypocritically militant atheists out there, and it looks like most of them hang out on internet message boards.

Stuff about English Lit
I think studying books/stories for themes is great when the themes are actually there. I didn't like having to study Huck Finn in high school after reading the little disclaimer about how anyone attempting to find meaning in the book will be shot.

[NeoCracker]

Christmas. (Not the poster)

Why? Well, I'll give you a few reasons.

1) Right now, Christmas is a National Holiday. WTF? From my understanding, there is suppose to be a seperation between church and state. So why the hell is a Christian Holiday a national holiday? This is like spitting at all the people who have tried to keep a freedom of religion in this country. All this does is shove this religion down other peoples throats.

2) The obligation people feel to give people something on this holiday. Why does this piss me off? Because of the hypocricy. They say you should give somebody a gift from the heart. If thats the case, why the hell do you need a specific day to do this? What makes this day so special that you need to give people something? And having to do it on that day, doesn't it kill the thought? It seems much more thoughtful to give a person a gift because you want to and you want to make them happy, not because its a damn holiday.

3) The commercialism. So many people capitalize on other peoples need to give gifts that day. Mind you, it's not the companies that I'm pissed at, they are simply a business trying to make money. They probably don't give a rats ass it's Christmas. It's the stupid people that go for that crap. They get so caught up in the commercialism, they forget that they should be doing things from the heart, not the wallet.

4) School being out. True, this could be part of the national holiday part, but I think it deserves its own number. People who don't celebrate Christmas are missing out on their education, even if it is for only a couple days. Someone will say, "Oh, but thats not fair for us Christians who Celebrate Christmas."

To you I say, what about the Jews who celebrate Hanaka, or the people that Celebrate Quanzica, or any other of those oddly named holidays. If they miss out on those days, they are still expected to make up what they missed. Yet you good Christians seem to think you are exempt from that and shouldn't have to miss anything. If they can miss out on a day or two for their holidays because they are that important to them, so can you you greedy bastards.

Thank you for reading.

PS: I also hate bright Sunshine.

[Madame Adequate]

1) Concerts.

Okay, let me get this straight, because it's a bit beyond my comprehension. You are willing to pay a premium to stand around and listen to a less-than-CD-quality rendition of something? With acoustics that are only any good if the artist is, in fact, lip synching, because otherwise it will either be ear-bleedingly loud and you won't make it out properly? And, here's the best bit - you will stand around in the middle of a huge crowd of people in order to do this?

2) Anti-commercialism/consumerism/corporatism

Yeah, actually, the reason that Microsoft is huge is because they do what they do better than the alternatives. Not true? Then the alternatives need to market themselves better. McDonald's and EA are also not evil and people need to get off their high horses every time a company becomes powerful, because aside from anything else the general whining about it makes the whole movement seem daft, which makes it difficult to investigate genuine problems.

3) The concept of nationality.

No, no, no. You do realize that nationalism is in itself at least as bad as racism and sexism, right? Only, at least in those cases there is some vaguely conceivable reasoning behind them? Here is a hint the geographic co-ordinates you happen to be born within do not have any inherent bearing on who you are. The fact that you might grow up in a different culture is hypocritical; A financier in London is going to have more in common with financiers in other major cities in other countries than with some fisherman at the arse end of Shetland. One world government is the only ethical, rational, and secure way forward.

4) Fear.

Some fear is sensible. It's smart to fear being blown up by nuclear bombs. It's smart to fear someone pointing a gun at you. It is not smart to fear ephemeral concepts of 'the other'. If I had one wish, I'd be tempted to wish for the feeling of fear to be utterly eliminated from the universe.

[41-Inches-Wide]

The very stuff that pains me with so much loathing is the fact that you cant get everything you want. Especially money, because having none at all simply kicks you in the head; having no money to buys stuff VITAL for you, or stuff that's everything you've wished for because you can't hand anything more than $3.

Take for example the fact that I want to study the observable universe.
And tonight it is very VITAL for the fulfillment of my soul and my mind to see JUPITER and confirm the sixteen known moons around it, and see. Well I want to buy a telescope, the Hubble Telescope, which grinds my gears because ITS NOT FOR SALE and even if it is i would've sold my every particle in my body, and soul and still not get it. ;___; BOOOOO

[Lawr]

To you I say, what about the Jews who celebrate Hanaka, or the people that Celebrate Quanzica, or any other of those oddly named holidays. If they miss out on those days, they are still expected to make up what they missed. Yet you good Christians seem to think you are exempt from that and shouldn't have to miss anything. If they can miss out on a day or two for their holidays because they are that important to them, so can you you greedy bastards.


My school goes on Christmas break on the first day of Hanaka and it's a big enough gap to cover Kwanzaa, Christmas, and the New Year. And it's not really the Christians' fault someone wanted to make up a random holiday and tried to associate it with Christ.

[NeoCracker]

To you I say, what about the Jews who celebrate Hanaka, or the people that Celebrate Quanzica, or any other of those oddly named holidays. If they miss out on those days, they are still expected to make up what they missed. Yet you good Christians seem to think you are exempt from that and shouldn't have to miss anything. If they can miss out on a day or two for their holidays because they are that important to them, so can you you greedy bastards.


My school goes on Christmas break on the first day of Hanaka and it's a big enough gap to cover Kwanzaa, Christmas, and the New Year. And it's not really the Christians' fault someone wanted to make up a random holiday and tried to associate it with Christ.
That is the only school I have ever heard of to do that.
It's better, but I still don't like it.

And I don't care if its not Chrismtas's Fault, I'm going to blame it anyway.

[Roto13]

1) Right now, Christmas is a National Holiday.
Alright.

2) The obligation people feel to give people something on this holiday.
What obligation?

3) The commercialism.
You're just doing it wrong. Christmas at my house is a family thing, not a commercial thing.

4) School being out.
People need a break half way through the school year or they'll explode.

3) The concept of nationality.

No, no, no. You do realize that nationalism is in itself at least as bad as racism and sexism, right? Only, at least in those cases there is some vaguely conceivable reasoning behind them? Here is a hint the geographic co-ordinates you happen to be born within do not have any inherent bearing on who you are. The fact that you might grow up in a different culture is hypocritical; A financier in London is going to have more in common with financiers in other major cities in other countries than with some fisherman at the arse end of Shetland. One world government is the only ethical, rational, and secure way forward.

It's pretty naive to say that someone's country (which is not only a big part of their environment, but is actually the environment that influences the environment) doesn't have any influence on kind of person they grow up to be. My fingers hurt.

[NeoCracker]

1) Right now, Christmas is a National Holiday.
Alright.

2) The obligation people feel to give people something on this holiday.
What obligation?

3) The commercialism.
You're just doing it wrong. Christmas at my house is a family thing, not a commercial thing.

4) School being out.
People need a break half way through the school year or they'll explode.

3) The concept of nationality.

No, no, no. You do realize that nationalism is in itself at least as bad as racism and sexism, right? Only, at least in those cases there is some vaguely conceivable reasoning behind them? Here is a hint the geographic co-ordinates you happen to be born within do not have any inherent bearing on who you are. The fact that you might grow up in a different culture is hypocritical; A financier in London is going to have more in common with financiers in other major cities in other countries than with some fisherman at the arse end of Shetland. One world government is the only ethical, rational, and secure way forward.

It's pretty naive to say that someone's country (which is not only a big part of their environment, but is actually the environment that influences the environment) doesn't have any influence on kind of person they grow up to be. My fingers hurt.

1) Okay, we agree here.

2) Perhaps you feel no obligation, but there are many people who do.

3) First, the Commercial Idea tied more in with the Obligation Idea. And good for you though.

4) True, they could use a break in the school year. Really its more the reason they use for the break. Though I realize it really didn't seem like that in my post, I tend to not get the point across I want when I rant. My apologies.

[Goldenboko]

You know what really grinds my gears?
A debate which kills a thread. Seriously. I'm not kidding. GTFO.

[Lawr]

This so called 'debate' is making it better IMO.

[NeoCracker]

You know what else grinds my gears? People trying to stop debates, given how debates can make the brain work, and increase ones current knowledge, in addition to possibly giving people different view points, thus expanding ones understanding as well.

[Madame Adequate]

It's pretty naive to say that someone's country (which is not only a big part of their environment, but is actually the environment that influences the environment) doesn't have any influence on kind of person they grow up to be. My fingers hurt.

I didn't say it has no influence. But there are other, far bigger influences, for one - and the influence is manufactured, for another. I do not think the division, segregation, and subsequent inevitable oppression of Humanity is a price worth paying to retain some nebulous idea of culture, which usually only serves as a shield of legitimacy for bigotry and xenophobia to hide behind.

[Yamaneko]

You're only saying that because you live in one of them loser countries.

[Madame Adequate]

You're only saying that because you live in one of them loser countries.

Actually most would contend that Britain would be overrun if it opened its doors. :monster:

[Del Murder]

I get extremely annoyed when people try to do things that are well beyond the limits of their own talents.

[Roto13]

You're only saying that because you live in one of them loser countries.

Actually most would contend that Britain would be overrun if it opened its doors. :monster:

He's talking about MILFland.

Burn.

[Lawr]

xenophobia to hide behind.

When I read this, I could have sworn Xenophobia was the fear of the number 8, or the letter 'S'.
But Wikipedia says otherwise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia). Hmm, it GRINDS MY GEARS WHEN I'M MISINFORMED!!! :mad2:

[Hambone]

RACISM!

[Quindiana Jones]

You're only saying that because you live in one of them loser countries.

Actually most would contend that Britain would be overrun if it opened its doors. :monster:

But, on the plus side, more people are leaving Britain than are coming in. I think.

[sillybuttons™]

I cant stand people who use the word literally in the wrong context. Grrrr. Example - "I was so embarrased, I literally died" wtf???????, no you didn't, your telling me about it now, post-embarrasing incident and you dont look bereft of life to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Or - " I was so happy, I was literally floating on air" - Defying gravity eh? Those physics proffesors better go back to the drawing board. :mog:

[demondude]

I cant stand people who use the word literally in the wrong context. Grrrr. Example - "I was so embarrased, I literally died" wtf???????, no you didn't, your telling me about it now, post-embarrasing incident and you dont look bereft of life to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Or - " I was so happy, I was literally floating on air" - Defying gravity eh? Those physics proffesors better go back to the drawing board. :mog:

I literally grew mushrooms on my head when I read that.

[Quindiana Jones]

"We're here, in a pub in Manchester, and the fans are literally going mental! I can see one now, tearing into the face of another, trying to devour the valuable brain stuff inside!"

[Shauna]

What Manus said. :D

[Madame Adequate]

I get extremely annoyed when people try to do things that are well beyond the limits of their own talents.

Then how does anyone improve?




You're only saying that because you live in one of them loser countries.

Actually most would contend that Britain would be overrun if it opened its doors. :monster:

He's talking about MILFland.

Burn.

Then he's about to get an F-117A up the jacksie. :)


"We're here, in a pub in Manchester, and the fans are literally going mental! I can see one now, tearing into the face of another, trying to devour the valuable brain stuff inside!"

I lol'd very hard. xDDD

[ScottNUMBERS]

ScottNUMBERS, you spelt weather wrong.
Sorry about that.

Oh how could I have possibly forgotten Anti-virus software. Completely pointless. My pop up blocker, blocks pop ups, indeed it does. Whenever I get one I receive this message:

"Oh you almost got a pop up there mate, good thing I'm here to block them blighters eh?"

IN THE FORM OF A SMURFING POP UP

What else does it do? Not let you download anything - admittedly that is a very good virus protection measure, but it is sort of like not eating at all in order to lose weight.

Also, for christ sake why doesn't Pingu the Penguin and all his other dumb penguin friends speak properly? :mad2:

[Quindiana Jones]

Also, for christ sake why doesn't Pingu the Penguin and all his other dumb penguin friends speak properly? :mad2:

Because they're penguins?

[Del Murder]

There is a difference between setting the bar higher to achieve the best of your ability and striving for something you simply cannot do.

[Lawr]

So the chances of me growing boobs is hopeless right?

[Yamaneko]

There is a difference between setting the bar higher to achieve the best of your ability and striving for something you simply cannot do.
How can that annoy you? Does it have a direct negative impact on how you live? I guess maybe if you collaborate with a bunch of misguided fools who think their ability to manage situations and apply policies in response is their God-given gift to man you might have a point. But really, where does that actually apply in your life? Yeah, those people piss me off and if I ever met one I would probably give them a piece of my mind, but until I am faced with a situation as described, I am content merely setting up the conditions as to what would annoy me as opposed to what does annoy me. I suggest, for mental and physical welfare, you do the same.

I am also annoyed by midgets and Jews.

[Iceglow]

Right now, I'd probably be going to Hell if you want to go by the Christian view of it all, because lying is awesome. I am a turkey! See? Hellbound.

We're both going to hell together Psy, and no amount of repenting is going to save us! The little lie about being a turkey is the least of your problems and reasons for going to hell, jackass.


Christmas. (Not the poster)

Why? Well, I'll give you a few reasons.

1) Right now, Christmas is a National Holiday. WTF? From my understanding, there is suppose to be a seperation between church and state. So why the hell is a Christian Holiday a national holiday? This is like spitting at all the people who have tried to keep a freedom of religion in this country. All this does is shove this religion down other peoples throats.

2) The obligation people feel to give people something on this holiday. Why does this piss me off? Because of the hypocricy. They say you should give somebody a gift from the heart. If thats the case, why the hell do you need a specific day to do this? What makes this day so special that you need to give people something? And having to do it on that day, doesn't it kill the thought? It seems much more thoughtful to give a person a gift because you want to and you want to make them happy, not because its a damn holiday.

3) The commercialism. So many people capitalize on other peoples need to give gifts that day. Mind you, it's not the companies that I'm pissed at, they are simply a business trying to make money. They probably don't give a rats ass it's Christmas. It's the stupid people that go for that crap. They get so caught up in the commercialism, they forget that they should be doing things from the heart, not the wallet.

4) School being out. True, this could be part of the national holiday part, but I think it deserves its own number. People who don't celebrate Christmas are missing out on their education, even if it is for only a couple days. Someone will say, "Oh, but thats not fair for us Christians who Celebrate Christmas."

To you I say, what about the Jews who celebrate Hanaka, or the people that Celebrate Quanzica, or any other of those oddly named holidays. If they miss out on those days, they are still expected to make up what they missed. Yet you good Christians seem to think you are exempt from that and shouldn't have to miss anything. If they can miss out on a day or two for their holidays because they are that important to them, so can you you greedy bastards.

Thank you for reading.

PS: I also hate bright Sunshine.

Well, I'm inclined to agree and disagree with you NC, Firstly I'll point out something even stranger than us somehow knowing that the 25th of december is the day Christ came to earth; the 30 day (average) month and the 7 day week have not been around eternally. In fact the Roman calendar had a 10 day week and I believe less months in the year, so therefore Christmas day would not have been on the 25th day of the 12th month or if it was it'd be highly unlikely. I could enter in to my whole debate of disproving the existence of God and the Devil based on the christianity compared to celtic beliefs, holidays and gods.

The fact that in most countries which are part of the commonwealth or were once ruled by the respective empires of many european countries (this is probably a huge portion of countries in the world) which converted to christianity with their new rulers have christmas as a national holiday is a throwback to when religion and state were very much intertwined and now it has become tradition it's hard to change. I used to study law and one of the first things I learnt is that legal judgements are not only based on the law but the moral and traditional values of a place. Therefore law was an uncertain thing.

The whole gift thing is quite strange to be honest. I know in the UK it used to be tradition to give presents on the 26th of december, boxing day. (which is where the name derives from not as I used to believe as a child because there was always boxing on boxing day) In other countries such as Poland it is Christmas Eve which is highly important religiously and traditionally. I guess the gift giving started out as some kind of gesture from the ruling class to the proletarian classes (working classes) A gift of a day off, some fresh fruit or salted meat ect ect it's become traditional and now everyone is giving gifts. Personally however I follow a great tradition of if someone is bad towards me they get no presents at christmas, this way of making children behave for me works to save me money as an adult. I have not brought my mother and sister a present now in over 5 years.

Commercialism, there has to be some point we draw the line at with this, sure people want to make money but some places are now taking it too far, I work in a store which sells a wide range of items, primarily it is meant to be a grocery store, food. That is what one traditionally buys in a supermarket, our store and indeed my department sells electricals, homeware, kitchen ware, toys, bedding all kinds of stuff. I remember seeing the first "christmas lines" deliveries in August and September. Other shops like Harrods have had christmas grottos since August. Bloody hell August is still mid summer, the educational year has yet to begin, the weather is still good, harvest time has yet to be done. I know however come the end of january I will see easter eggs comming in to my store for the easter period. I think this is my biggest gripe with the commercial society the modern world lives by.

School holidays were probably originally set when state and religion was very much intertwined don't forget in countries such as the uk it used to be called Heresy to not believe in god and heretics were burnt at the stake or given to the inquisition to torture and kill.

What personally grinds my gears?

The war on terrorism.

Now I have the utmost respect for soldiers who have gone to fight for their countries and I truly think they done some good in the world by taking Saddam Hussein out of power and also taking the corrupt Afghanistani government down. I think the anti war protestors are stupid, we're at war you protest before we go to war not once we're fighting it...once commited to a course of action there is no going back, don't like the way someone leads your country don't vote them in to power for another damn term. So many of my friends went to the anti war protests in London and all tried to get me to go with them but I am in a sense pro war and refused.

I just believe the war on terrorism can never be truly won. I mean, whenever someone sets rules or laws there are those who will be malcontent with these rules or laws. Most will merely whine about them impotently whilst still following the rules/laws. Some will refuse to follow the laws/rules and break or bend them when they can and protest these laws publicly trying to get them changed. There will however always be someone or some people I should say who will see these laws/rules and decide that not only do they not agree with the laws/rules but will fight physically to get them changed, these people are terrorists in the eyes of governments everywhere. Some terrorists will fight against government targets and government employees, if these organisations become big enough with enough political clout they're classed as rebellions. Other terrorists will see anyone who accepts these laws, upholds these laws, protects these laws as viable targets. These people like the islamic extremists responsible for 9/11 kill innocent people.

In this war on terrorism we're trying to stomp out the terrorists, yet we're setting up law and order, rules and regulations. In effect we're breeding more terrorists. And yes, I do believe we will cause future terrorists in this war on terrorism. You can already see it's happening out there in our cities, our schools, our religious fanes. What George W Bush and Tony Blair have effectively put in motion is a war which can never be won, never be declared over because there will always be terrorists. Now if they reset the target of the war on terrorism to be "lets take down the corrupt governments in the middle east and establish governments which will help their people prosper in the modern world." I believe it is something attainable.

[Madame Adequate]

There is a difference between setting the bar higher to achieve the best of your ability and striving for something you simply cannot do.

You won't reach the former unless you try for the latter.

[blackmage_nuke]

I dont get what your all talking about, grinding my gears is my favourite part of the day

[KuRt]

Christmas. (Not the poster)

Why? Well, I'll give you a few reasons.

1) Right now, Christmas is a National Holiday. WTF? From my understanding, there is suppose to be a seperation between church and state. So why the hell is a Christian Holiday a national holiday? This is like spitting at all the people who have tried to keep a freedom of religion in this country. All this does is shove this religion down other peoples throats.


Christmas has been a moneyspending event even before the birth of Jesus (whoever believes to him). Same goes for easter, you remember how Jesus rode to Jerusalem with a donkey during easter? He wasn't dead by then so eastern wasn't originally the celebration of his reincarnation. Bible has just tried to explain all sorts of events with it's own style.

[Aerith's Knight]

i dont think the christmas you celebrate is the same christmas christians were supposed to have.. red fat guys dont really get mentioned in the bible.. so youve got nothing to whine about

[KuRt]

exactly. Most holidays aren't biblical by origin so go have some fun on Xmas, Neocracker

[Aerith's Knight]

actually.. most holidays are.. but no one remembers.. i mean easter wasnt supposed to be about rabbits and colored eggs..

[Shauna]

The early Christians just based their holidays around the same time as the Pagans celebrated their holidays.

Christmas: Winter Solstice. Who wouldn't celebrate the lengthening of the days? But, the Christians wanted a holiday then, so they just decided that they'd throw the birth of Jesus at around that time. :p
Easter: A General Spring holiday - so much happens in Spring, it can all be celebrated! Again, the Christians probably decided that because the PAGANS had a holiday then, they had to have a holiday - and the resurrection of Jesus sounded good. ;D

Well, that's my reasoning for the holiday placements. :cool:

[rubah]

It seems like everytime I make a foray into the dolling community I get a little angry because it's been changed from a counter culture art form to being a stay-at-home mom feel good machine. The forums won't allow you to disagree with other members, you are restricted in the utmost to how you can use materials people release, and there's just a pent up feeling there. I share my little gospel of 'holy crap guys they are tying you up like a pitbull' but it goes unnoticed or they've convinced themselves there is no issue.

The initial reason for strict rules? People would take credit for stuff they didn't make of course. The strict codes of behavior? People would find out about these people and go on 'witchhunts' to publicly shame them.

It's just so ridiculous and constricting. Also their websites are bastions of bad coding and design.

[Aerith's Knight]

The early Christians just based their holidays around the same time as the Pagans celebrated their holidays.

Christmas: Winter Solstice. Who wouldn't celebrate the lengthening of the days? But, the Christians wanted a holiday then, so they just decided that they'd throw the birth of Jesus at around that time. :p
Easter: A General Spring holiday - so much happens in Spring, it can all be celebrated! Again, the Christians probably decided that because the PAGANS had a holiday then, they had to have a holiday - and the resurrection of Jesus sounded good. ;D

Well, that's my reasoning for the holiday placements. :cool:

yeah.. that must be it.. besides the fact that the Jews invented easter, still being called pesach back then. and they had their own calander, so i really doubt that they adjusted it to the pagans.. and its not like Jesus was born on christmas day.. no noo.. they just decided to celebrate it on that day, because the pagans did something then..

.. if you are not smart enough to understand.. that was sarcasm

[mooglebunni608]

My sister. Selfish mofoing b***h. Meine Gott.

><

She steals my stuff, can't repect that we have different feelings on things, and she thinks she can argue while all she ever does is constantly repeat the same very unreasonable statement until people agree with her simply because they feel like their brain has turned to milk.

WTF.

[Roto13]

.. and its not like Jesus was born on christmas day.. no noo.. they just decided to celebrate it on that day, because the pagans did something then..

That's exactly what happened. :P

Christmas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas#Yule)

[The Ceej]

School is supposed to educate children, not brainwash them.

Really? I was under the impression that the primary purpose of school was to brainwash children to conform them to the mindless drones they want in society. Education has always been an afterthought.


I truly think they done some good in the world by taking Saddam Hussein out of power

Say what you want about Saddam Hussein, but at least he kept order which is more than we're doing over there.

Now, Christmas. I was just asking myself the other day why we do this every year. We just do this for seemingly no real purpose. The best answer I can come up with is tradition. Tradition. Apparently the majority of people haven't read The Lottery.

[Aerith's Knight]

sarcasm my friends.. learn it, live it, love it

[Roto13]

School is supposed to educate children, not brainwash them.

Really? I was under the impression that the primary purpose of school was to brainwash children to conform them to the mindless drones they want in society. Education has always been an afterthought.


I truly think they done some good in the world by taking Saddam Hussein out of power

Say what you want about Saddam Hussein, but at least he kept order which is more than we're doing over there.

Now, Christmas. I was just asking myself the other day why we do this every year. We just do this for seemingly no real purpose. The best answer I can come up with is tradition. Tradition. Apparently the majority of people haven't read The Lottery.

Wow.

1) Stop being paranoid. You seriously sound like one of those people who hangs around back stage at punk concerts talking about how much society sucks and how they're the only people left in the world capable of free thought.

2) Order through genocide? Yup yup.

3) I certainly hope that by "we" you mean "you" because I do it for an actual reason. Because I, along with my family, enjoy it.

[Leeza]

Roto, I gather the The Ceej is not your favourite member at EoFF, but please try not to be on his tail with some disparaging remark every time he posts. Thank you.

[NeoCracker]

Right now, I'd probably be going to Hell if you want to go by the Christian view of it all, because lying is awesome. I am a turkey! See? Hellbound.

We're both going to hell together Psy, and no amount of repenting is going to save us! The little lie about being a turkey is the least of your problems and reasons for going to hell, jackass.


Christmas. (Not the poster)

Why? Well, I'll give you a few reasons.

1) Right now, Christmas is a National Holiday. WTF? From my understanding, there is suppose to be a seperation between church and state. So why the hell is a Christian Holiday a national holiday? This is like spitting at all the people who have tried to keep a freedom of religion in this country. All this does is shove this religion down other peoples throats.

2) The obligation people feel to give people something on this holiday. Why does this piss me off? Because of the hypocricy. They say you should give somebody a gift from the heart. If thats the case, why the hell do you need a specific day to do this? What makes this day so special that you need to give people something? And having to do it on that day, doesn't it kill the thought? It seems much more thoughtful to give a person a gift because you want to and you want to make them happy, not because its a damn holiday.

3) The commercialism. So many people capitalize on other peoples need to give gifts that day. Mind you, it's not the companies that I'm pissed at, they are simply a business trying to make money. They probably don't give a rats ass it's Christmas. It's the stupid people that go for that crap. They get so caught up in the commercialism, they forget that they should be doing things from the heart, not the wallet.

4) School being out. True, this could be part of the national holiday part, but I think it deserves its own number. People who don't celebrate Christmas are missing out on their education, even if it is for only a couple days. Someone will say, "Oh, but thats not fair for us Christians who Celebrate Christmas."

To you I say, what about the Jews who celebrate Hanaka, or the people that Celebrate Quanzica, or any other of those oddly named holidays. If they miss out on those days, they are still expected to make up what they missed. Yet you good Christians seem to think you are exempt from that and shouldn't have to miss anything. If they can miss out on a day or two for their holidays because they are that important to them, so can you you greedy bastards.

Thank you for reading.

PS: I also hate bright Sunshine.

Well, I'm inclined to agree and disagree with you NC, Firstly I'll point out something even stranger than us somehow knowing that the 25th of december is the day Christ came to earth; the 30 day (average) month and the 7 day week have not been around eternally. In fact the Roman calendar had a 10 day week and I believe less months in the year, so therefore Christmas day would not have been on the 25th day of the 12th month or if it was it'd be highly unlikely. I could enter in to my whole debate of disproving the existence of God and the Devil based on the christianity compared to celtic beliefs, holidays and gods.

The fact that in most countries which are part of the commonwealth or were once ruled by the respective empires of many european countries (this is probably a huge portion of countries in the world) which converted to christianity with their new rulers have christmas as a national holiday is a throwback to when religion and state were very much intertwined and now it has become tradition it's hard to change. I used to study law and one of the first things I learnt is that legal judgements are not only based on the law but the moral and traditional values of a place. Therefore law was an uncertain thing.

The whole gift thing is quite strange to be honest. I know in the UK it used to be tradition to give presents on the 26th of december, boxing day. (which is where the name derives from not as I used to believe as a child because there was always boxing on boxing day) In other countries such as Poland it is Christmas Eve which is highly important religiously and traditionally. I guess the gift giving started out as some kind of gesture from the ruling class to the proletarian classes (working classes) A gift of a day off, some fresh fruit or salted meat ect ect it's become traditional and now everyone is giving gifts. Personally however I follow a great tradition of if someone is bad towards me they get no presents at christmas, this way of making children behave for me works to save me money as an adult. I have not brought my mother and sister a present now in over 5 years.

Commercialism, there has to be some point we draw the line at with this, sure people want to make money but some places are now taking it too far, I work in a store which sells a wide range of items, primarily it is meant to be a grocery store, food. That is what one traditionally buys in a supermarket, our store and indeed my department sells electricals, homeware, kitchen ware, toys, bedding all kinds of stuff. I remember seeing the first "christmas lines" deliveries in August and September. Other shops like Harrods have had christmas grottos since August. Bloody hell August is still mid summer, the educational year has yet to begin, the weather is still good, harvest time has yet to be done. I know however come the end of january I will see easter eggs comming in to my store for the easter period. I think this is my biggest gripe with the commercial society the modern world lives by.

School holidays were probably originally set when state and religion was very much intertwined don't forget in countries such as the uk it used to be called Heresy to not believe in god and heretics were burnt at the stake or given to the inquisition to torture and kill.

What personally grinds my gears?

The war on terrorism.

Now I have the utmost respect for soldiers who have gone to fight for their countries and I truly think they done some good in the world by taking Saddam Hussein out of power and also taking the corrupt Afghanistani government down. I think the anti war protestors are stupid, we're at war you protest before we go to war not once we're fighting it...once commited to a course of action there is no going back, don't like the way someone leads your country don't vote them in to power for another damn term. So many of my friends went to the anti war protests in London and all tried to get me to go with them but I am in a sense pro war and refused.

I just believe the war on terrorism can never be truly won. I mean, whenever someone sets rules or laws there are those who will be malcontent with these rules or laws. Most will merely whine about them impotently whilst still following the rules/laws. Some will refuse to follow the laws/rules and break or bend them when they can and protest these laws publicly trying to get them changed. There will however always be someone or some people I should say who will see these laws/rules and decide that not only do they not agree with the laws/rules but will fight physically to get them changed, these people are terrorists in the eyes of governments everywhere. Some terrorists will fight against government targets and government employees, if these organisations become big enough with enough political clout they're classed as rebellions. Other terrorists will see anyone who accepts these laws, upholds these laws, protects these laws as viable targets. These people like the islamic extremists responsible for 9/11 kill innocent people.

In this war on terrorism we're trying to stomp out the terrorists, yet we're setting up law and order, rules and regulations. In effect we're breeding more terrorists. And yes, I do believe we will cause future terrorists in this war on terrorism. You can already see it's happening out there in our cities, our schools, our religious fanes. What George W Bush and Tony Blair have effectively put in motion is a war which can never be won, never be declared over because there will always be terrorists. Now if they reset the target of the war on terrorism to be "lets take down the corrupt governments in the middle east and establish governments which will help their people prosper in the modern world." I believe it is something attainable.

First, it's not really the business's that bother me, its the people who get so absorbed into this commercialism that bother me.

Other than that, were exactly are we disagreeing?

And Bert, I refuse to enjoy Christmas. Not only is it pointless and meaningless to me even without the Christian holiday thing, but I hate Christmas music.

And finally, I already know the Origins of Christmas aren't exactly with Christianity.

However the origins don't mean much, what matters is that now it is a Christian holiday, and it seems that its why its national. If it weren't national, there wouldn't be some large groups of Athiest's and jews fighting it. There would be a large number of Christians doing it though. and while there will be some that honestly want it around for traditions sake, most of them will be fighting to keep it simply because of their religious beliefs.

There is no reason for Christmas to be a national holiday. At all.

Of course, I have issues with tradition too. :P

[Roto13]

Roto, I gather the The Ceej is not your favourite member at EoFF, but please try not to be on his tail with some disparaging remark every time he posts. Thank you.

NEVAR!

[Lynx]

cynical people.

overly cautious people.

[Old Manus]

School is supposed to educate children, not brainwash them.

Really? I was under the impression that the primary purpose of school was to brainwash children to conform them to the mindless drones they want in society. Education has always been an afterthought.
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/b/bf/Lolwutpear.jpg

[Madame Adequate]

Roto, I gather the The Ceej is not your favourite member at EoFF, but please try not to be on his tail with some disparaging remark every time he posts. Thank you.

But it's so difficult. :(

Manus is giant win btw.

[Raebus]

The early Christians just based their holidays around the same time as the Pagans celebrated their holidays.

Christmas: Winter Solstice. Who wouldn't celebrate the lengthening of the days? But, the Christians wanted a holiday then, so they just decided that they'd throw the birth of Jesus at around that time. :p
Easter: A General Spring holiday - so much happens in Spring, it can all be celebrated! Again, the Christians probably decided that because the PAGANS had a holiday then, they had to have a holiday - and the resurrection of Jesus sounded good. ;D

Well, that's my reasoning for the holiday placements. :cool:

yeah.. that must be it.. besides the fact that the Jews invented easter, still being called pesach back then. and they had their own calander, so i really doubt that they adjusted it to the pagans.. and its not like Jesus was born on christmas day.. no noo.. they just decided to celebrate it on that day, because the pagans did something then..

.. if you are not smart enough to understand.. that was sarcasm

Even someone who as you say "Is smart enough to understand" probably wouldn't bother figuring out that mess of a paragraph.

[Heath]

1) Concerts.

I agree with you on this one. I've never really understood it myself, either.


2) Anti-commercialism/consumerism/corporatism

I honestly think a lot of people whine about this sort of thing and about how America is most evil country in the world simply because it's seen as a cool thing to do. Having said that, I do think there are some genuine grievances with companies like McDonalds in regards to their treatment of staff, the products they sell and how ridiculously litigious they are. If people have genuine reasons for they're whining, I have less of a problem. If people are jumping on the bandwagon, that really grinds my gears.


3) The concept of nationality.

Obviously the concept of a nationality is more of an issue for you living in Northern Ireland than it was for me living in Wales but I disagree. I think there are certain cultural norms that are associated with a certain society or certain country that you won't find in other countries and certainly every country has its strengths and weaknesses, the former you can be proud of. I wouldn't describe myself as a nationalist really, but I do think Britain is a bloody good country.

Sorry if it seemed I singled you out a bit, just yours were amongst the most interesting raised in the thread.

What grinds my gears? Well, everyone saying Everton are a physical team is certainly quite irritating considering we're second in the Fair Play league (only Liverpool, who've played a game less, are higher).

[KuRt]

actually.. most holidays are.. but no one remembers.. i mean easter wasnt supposed to be about rabbits and colored eggs..

Fantastic Easter Special - 1105 - Watch - South Park Zone (http://www.southparkzone.com/episodes/1105/Fantastic-Easter-Special.html)
you cant be more wrong ^^

[Aerith's Knight]

i did see that.. fun but talk about blasfemy :p

[Madame Adequate]

Obviously the concept of a nationality is more of an issue for you living in Northern Ireland than it was for me living in Wales but I disagree. I think there are certain cultural norms that are associated with a certain society or certain country that you won't find in other countries and certainly every country has its strengths and weaknesses, the former you can be proud of. I wouldn't describe myself as a nationalist really, but I do think Britain is a bloody good country.

All fair points, but I wouldn't say that religion should take the place of nationality. It's not even so much that there aren't differences as there oughtn't to be, and also, the similarities encompass broader groups than most care to admit. The US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada could form one nation tomorrow and very little would have to change for the people living in it. We'd adopt a single currency throughout it, the way some of our laws are codified would change for some people, and that's it. We'd still all believe in a day's work for a day's pay, a fair go, equality before the law, political freedoms, etc. etc. People think that because two countries implement their ideals differently, that they must have different ideals. This is not necessarily true, and I would personally say it's false - they merely differ in how best to implement the ideals.

Now that wouldn't extend to, for example, including the Russian Federation or China or anything like that easily - because those societies do operate differently and it'd take time to get them to the necessary standards of democracy and suchlike - but much as I'd like to wake up tomorrow to a One World Government, I think progress can and should be made in the general direction of one.

[Vincent, Thunder God]

I wrote this a few years ago when I was at my wits end with being forced to do English Literature. I got a C in the end. [/wasteoftime]


English Literature is officially the stupidest subject in the galaxy.

Books are meant for a single purpose: To be read. Nothing more. If I was to buy a book, I would read it, and it may take me a few days to a few weeks to complete, depending on time/motivation. Once I'd finished, I would put it on the bookshelf, and there it would gather dust for the next few months/years until I decide to read it again. If, however, I find the book sucks, I stop reading, put it on the bookshelf, and there it would gather dust for the next few years until I decide to sell it or use it as a source of firewood/toilet paper.

What I definately would not do is write around six million pages of endless notes on the characters, themes, thoughts and feelings that are inside the book. Welcome to the wacky world that is English Literature. In this most exciting of subjects you get the privelidge of reading a book around five times a month, making tons of notes and stupid 'Spider Diagrams' on whatever the hell you've just had forced on you, and at the end you get to write even more pages about the book, except this time in the form of answers to vague questions such as 'What are the thoughts and feelings of John Smith throughout Chapt. 3?'. I'm practically wet with excitement.

Case in Point: GCSE study of 'Of Mice And Men'
For a start, why the hell any sane fifteen year-old kid would want to read a seventy year-old novella about two cowboys and their adventure(s?) on a ranch is beyond me. I personally found the book terrifyingly mundane and boring, maybe because of the less than exciting method of having it rammed down our throats for two years to make it 'stick'. It stuck alright, it stuck to serve as one of, if not the most mind-numbingly boring and frustrating experience at school. Whatever anyone says about John Steinbeck and his awesome greatness, this book was not good at all. I didn't like Shakespeare either, but that's another story. English Literature has a way of making the most interesting piece of text so boring you contemplate suicide just to end the nightmare. I'm sure if I had read Of Mice And Men out of my own accord, and when I felt like it, I would have enjoyed it more. But I'm not here to complain about the book, just the subject.

The most annoying thing about English Literature is the fact that you ABSOLUTELY MUST read so much between the lines that suddenly everything loses all meaning and you wonder why the hell you're bothering to analyse this book anyway. For God's sake, it's a book. The characters are fictional. They don't have 'thoughts and feelings'. They don't 'do this because this happened'. It's a figment of the writer's imagination. If you want to find out why John Smith did action X, ask the damn author, because sure as hell he's the only one who has a true idea about what he's writing, yet most of the time you look so deep into the text the author himself will get the urge to slap you in the face and say 'It's only a book'.

For example, a question that sticks in my mind was 'Crooks is introduced in Chapter 4. Why do you think Steinbeck put him into the story?' I don't bloody know, do I? Do I look like I have an inside-out knowledge of Steinbeck's brain complex? I don't think he knows anymore either, seeing as he died about forty years ago. Secondly, why should I care? Why should I care about the (no doubt, very deep) reasoning behind adding a character to some dumb book? How does this improve my understanding of the story? These are all questions you should ask next time you decide to write a 3 page essay on a stupid question about a stupid book. Hopefully pondering this will give you the courage to actually ask your teacher why the hell the subject is on the curriculum, and how it can ever cross anyone's mind to decide to teach this rubbish for the next twenty years. I appreciate that a knowledge of famous literature can help you in some abstract ways, but apart from getting that extra point in your local pub quiz, I see no point in relentlessly poring over these century-old novels and trying to pick out every single meaning behind every single line said by every single character. It's pointless, and stupid.

What skills do you hone when studying this subject? Reading? 'Book Analysis'? I'll tell you what skills you hone with this subject. To make it easier, here it is in list form:


1.


If I want to improve my reading skills, It's none of the curriculum's business how I do it. I read the paper. I read the internet. I occaisonally read books. I do not spend two+ years going through a rainforest of paper to come to one conclusion: Why the hell am I doing this?

Up yours, English Literature.

This is so very true. Every book I've read in school is dampened by the excessive analyzing of a novel which would leave much more of a learning experience if taken as a whole, as the author intended, without a binder full of explanations and no one should attempt to spew out the "definitive" right answer to ANY of those questions because the author wrote it, not them!

[Zeldy]

I wrote this a few years ago when I was at my wits end with being forced to do English Literature. I got a C in the end. [/wasteoftime]


English Literature is officially the stupidest subject in the galaxy.

Books are meant for a single purpose: To be read. Nothing more. If I was to buy a book, I would read it, and it may take me a few days to a few weeks to complete, depending on time/motivation. Once I'd finished, I would put it on the bookshelf, and there it would gather dust for the next few months/years until I decide to read it again. If, however, I find the book sucks, I stop reading, put it on the bookshelf, and there it would gather dust for the next few years until I decide to sell it or use it as a source of firewood/toilet paper.

What I definately would not do is write around six million pages of endless notes on the characters, themes, thoughts and feelings that are inside the book. Welcome to the wacky world that is English Literature. In this most exciting of subjects you get the privelidge of reading a book around five times a month, making tons of notes and stupid 'Spider Diagrams' on whatever the hell you've just had forced on you, and at the end you get to write even more pages about the book, except this time in the form of answers to vague questions such as 'What are the thoughts and feelings of John Smith throughout Chapt. 3?'. I'm practically wet with excitement.

Case in Point: GCSE study of 'Of Mice And Men'
For a start, why the hell any sane fifteen year-old kid would want to read a seventy year-old novella about two cowboys and their adventure(s?) on a ranch is beyond me. I personally found the book terrifyingly mundane and boring, maybe because of the less than exciting method of having it rammed down our throats for two years to make it 'stick'. It stuck alright, it stuck to serve as one of, if not the most mind-numbingly boring and frustrating experience at school. Whatever anyone says about John Steinbeck and his awesome greatness, this book was not good at all. I didn't like Shakespeare either, but that's another story. English Literature has a way of making the most interesting piece of text so boring you contemplate suicide just to end the nightmare. I'm sure if I had read Of Mice And Men out of my own accord, and when I felt like it, I would have enjoyed it more. But I'm not here to complain about the book, just the subject.

The most annoying thing about English Literature is the fact that you ABSOLUTELY MUST read so much between the lines that suddenly everything loses all meaning and you wonder why the hell you're bothering to analyse this book anyway. For God's sake, it's a book. The characters are fictional. They don't have 'thoughts and feelings'. They don't 'do this because this happened'. It's a figment of the writer's imagination. If you want to find out why John Smith did action X, ask the damn author, because sure as hell he's the only one who has a true idea about what he's writing, yet most of the time you look so deep into the text the author himself will get the urge to slap you in the face and say 'It's only a book'.

For example, a question that sticks in my mind was 'Crooks is introduced in Chapter 4. Why do you think Steinbeck put him into the story?' I don't bloody know, do I? Do I look like I have an inside-out knowledge of Steinbeck's brain complex? I don't think he knows anymore either, seeing as he died about forty years ago. Secondly, why should I care? Why should I care about the (no doubt, very deep) reasoning behind adding a character to some dumb book? How does this improve my understanding of the story? These are all questions you should ask next time you decide to write a 3 page essay on a stupid question about a stupid book. Hopefully pondering this will give you the courage to actually ask your teacher why the hell the subject is on the curriculum, and how it can ever cross anyone's mind to decide to teach this rubbish for the next twenty years. I appreciate that a knowledge of famous literature can help you in some abstract ways, but apart from getting that extra point in your local pub quiz, I see no point in relentlessly poring over these century-old novels and trying to pick out every single meaning behind every single line said by every single character. It's pointless, and stupid.

What skills do you hone when studying this subject? Reading? 'Book Analysis'? I'll tell you what skills you hone with this subject. To make it easier, here it is in list form:


1.


If I want to improve my reading skills, It's none of the curriculum's business how I do it. I read the paper. I read the internet. I occaisonally read books. I do not spend two+ years going through a rainforest of paper to come to one conclusion: Why the hell am I doing this?

Up yours, English Literature.

This is so very true. Every book I've read in school is dampened by the excessive analyzing of a novel which would leave much more of a learning experience if taken as a whole, as the author intended, without a binder full of explanations and no one should attempt to spew out the "definitive" right answer to ANY of those questions because the author wrote it, not them!

BUT IT IS SUCH A FUN SUBJECT. Can none of you see the fun? ;__;
I find it so easy in comparison to every other subject. All you have to do is make connotations and PEE! (point. example. explanation) simple ;;

[Old Manus]

Simple, yet mind numbingly boring. And the fact that the examiner has a mark scheme which marks you right or wrong on how you personally interpret the book, is stupid.

Maybe it's just a female thing. The only people who were actually interested in the subject iirc were girls, the rest of us slept.

[Raebus]

I wrote this a few years ago when I was at my wits end with being forced to do English Literature. I got a C in the end. [/wasteoftime]


English Literature is officially the stupidest subject in the galaxy.

Books are meant for a single purpose: To be read. Nothing more. If I was to buy a book, I would read it, and it may take me a few days to a few weeks to complete, depending on time/motivation. Once I'd finished, I would put it on the bookshelf, and there it would gather dust for the next few months/years until I decide to read it again. If, however, I find the book sucks, I stop reading, put it on the bookshelf, and there it would gather dust for the next few years until I decide to sell it or use it as a source of firewood/toilet paper.

What I definately would not do is write around six million pages of endless notes on the characters, themes, thoughts and feelings that are inside the book. Welcome to the wacky world that is English Literature. In this most exciting of subjects you get the privelidge of reading a book around five times a month, making tons of notes and stupid 'Spider Diagrams' on whatever the hell you've just had forced on you, and at the end you get to write even more pages about the book, except this time in the form of answers to vague questions such as 'What are the thoughts and feelings of John Smith throughout Chapt. 3?'. I'm practically wet with excitement.

Case in Point: GCSE study of 'Of Mice And Men'
For a start, why the hell any sane fifteen year-old kid would want to read a seventy year-old novella about two cowboys and their adventure(s?) on a ranch is beyond me. I personally found the book terrifyingly mundane and boring, maybe because of the less than exciting method of having it rammed down our throats for two years to make it 'stick'. It stuck alright, it stuck to serve as one of, if not the most mind-numbingly boring and frustrating experience at school. Whatever anyone says about John Steinbeck and his awesome greatness, this book was not good at all. I didn't like Shakespeare either, but that's another story. English Literature has a way of making the most interesting piece of text so boring you contemplate suicide just to end the nightmare. I'm sure if I had read Of Mice And Men out of my own accord, and when I felt like it, I would have enjoyed it more. But I'm not here to complain about the book, just the subject.

The most annoying thing about English Literature is the fact that you ABSOLUTELY MUST read so much between the lines that suddenly everything loses all meaning and you wonder why the hell you're bothering to analyse this book anyway. For God's sake, it's a book. The characters are fictional. They don't have 'thoughts and feelings'. They don't 'do this because this happened'. It's a figment of the writer's imagination. If you want to find out why John Smith did action X, ask the damn author, because sure as hell he's the only one who has a true idea about what he's writing, yet most of the time you look so deep into the text the author himself will get the urge to slap you in the face and say 'It's only a book'.

For example, a question that sticks in my mind was 'Crooks is introduced in Chapter 4. Why do you think Steinbeck put him into the story?' I don't bloody know, do I? Do I look like I have an inside-out knowledge of Steinbeck's brain complex? I don't think he knows anymore either, seeing as he died about forty years ago. Secondly, why should I care? Why should I care about the (no doubt, very deep) reasoning behind adding a character to some dumb book? How does this improve my understanding of the story? These are all questions you should ask next time you decide to write a 3 page essay on a stupid question about a stupid book. Hopefully pondering this will give you the courage to actually ask your teacher why the hell the subject is on the curriculum, and how it can ever cross anyone's mind to decide to teach this rubbish for the next twenty years. I appreciate that a knowledge of famous literature can help you in some abstract ways, but apart from getting that extra point in your local pub quiz, I see no point in relentlessly poring over these century-old novels and trying to pick out every single meaning behind every single line said by every single character. It's pointless, and stupid.

What skills do you hone when studying this subject? Reading? 'Book Analysis'? I'll tell you what skills you hone with this subject. To make it easier, here it is in list form:


1.


If I want to improve my reading skills, It's none of the curriculum's business how I do it. I read the paper. I read the internet. I occaisonally read books. I do not spend two+ years going through a rainforest of paper to come to one conclusion: Why the hell am I doing this?

Up yours, English Literature.

This is so very true. Every book I've read in school is dampened by the excessive analyzing of a novel which would leave much more of a learning experience if taken as a whole, as the author intended, without a binder full of explanations and no one should attempt to spew out the "definitive" right answer to ANY of those questions because the author wrote it, not them!

BUT IT IS SUCH A FUN SUBJECT. Can none of you see the fun? ;__;
I find it so easy in comparison to every other subject. All you have to do is make connotations and PEE! (point. example. explanation) simple ;;

I could always pee at home though. :cool:

[Zeldy]

Simple, yet mind numbingly boring. And the fact that the examiner has a mark scheme which marks you right or wrong on how you personally interpret the book, is stupid.

Maybe it's just a female thing. The only people who were actually interested in the subject iirc were girls, the rest of us slept.

Not necessarily, cause I know examiner's and teachers support you to put down your own ideas, so I find them having a marking scheme quite ludicrous and I don't believe you! It's marked on how you've explained yourself, and what points you have made. You could say that a character adds depth but someone else could say it adds humour and how could an examiner say which is right without being one sided?

What about poetry? I bet you read your Anthology every night ;D

[Old Manus]

My teacher didn't let me put down my own ideas. Mainly cause I tended to take the piss a bit in my answers.

And Jesus, don't even get me started on poetry. English Lit is like getting high compared to studying poetry. Good lord, it sends shivers down my e-spine.

[Zeldy]

Sux4u. Well then it's your own fault that English Lit fails for you. My teacher encourages us to put down our own thoughts, as there is never a right answer.

I absolutely love studying poetry! I've just finished cluster 1, or 2, or whichever cluster includes Vultures and Limbo (LIMBO.. LIKE ME).

[Old Manus]

I'm...just going kill myself

brb

[Roto13]

In my lit classes, my teachers always marked us on how well we presented our ideas, not whether or not they matched that the teacher saw. As long as you were able to back up your answers, you were ok.

[Old Manus]

Blame the WJEC. I could scan pieces of work where I have crosses with 'Not really' written above them :(

[Zeldy]

Blame the WJEC. I could scan pieces of work where I have crosses with 'Not really' written above them :(
You probably worded them wrong, or didn't link it to a quote or it was extremely ludicrous :)

[Shauna]

Up here, they just gave us texts that were so utterly boring, that you wouldn't WANT to form your own opinion on it, so we pretty much wrote the same essay for any question asked, but change the wording a bit. It still sucks though. :D

[Old Manus]

I give up. I hated English Lit, whether I was good at it or not.

[Jessweeee♪]

That is so true Manus ; ;

I love to read, but my English class kills if for me. I can't spend more than two weeks on a book or I get bored. SO SO BORED. Especially when the book's already boring. I try and read a more interesting book, but NEW I have to read The Scarlet Letter, a somewhat interesting book with too much imagery. TOO. MUCH. Yes, yes, the forest is pretty, Pearl can touch the sunlight and Hester can't 'cause she cheated on her husband with a holy man. Yes. I get it. Get on with the story.


....anyway.


I absolutely HATE it when people I barely know think they're allowed to criticize my hygienic habits when my acne gets really bad just because they have acne too.

[Cookie]

English lit was crap. Listening to fifteen and sixteen year olds fail to read Catcher in the Rye was depressing.

[Old Manus]

IT'S A BIT LATE TO COME TO MY AID GUYS

[Cookie]

I absolutely love studying poetry! I've just finished cluster 1, or 2, or whichever cluster includes Vultures and Limbo (LIMBO.. LIKE ME).

Cluster 1, Other Cultures iirc. Limbo was about slavery and rape. :(

[Zeldy]

English lit was crap. Listening to fifteen and sixteen year olds fail to read Catcher in the Rye was depressing.

Catcher in the Rye was depressing. I had to read it twice, TWICE. I did my English Lit GCSE a year early (yes, I love it that much ;]) and Catcher was, annoyingly, the book we had to do it on so my teacher made us all read it twice in lessons. It was torture. I had to listen to my teacher try and do an American accent and most of the time I was 5 pages ahead of the class.



I absolutely love studying poetry! I've just finished cluster 1, or 2, or whichever cluster includes Vultures and Limbo (LIMBO.. LIKE ME).

Cluster 1, Other Cultures iirc. Limbo was about slavery and rape. :(

I thought so. Yeah, I know D: I just remember doing it first in year 9 and our teacher played a recording of the poet speaking it, and it was hilarious xD 'Limbo.. limbo.. like me!'. I really like 'Vultures'! I really hope it isnt 'What were they like?' that I have to analyse for my English Lang GCSE this year :3

[Heath]

I really enjoyed English Literature and - in another life - I'd be at university studying it now, had I not decided to take a gap year at the last moment back in May. In college I've had teachers that encouraged us to find our own meanings from the poetry and discussed our ideas on a class-wide basis with everyone being encouraged to contribute and (provided you had the evidence to back it up) nobody was wrong, really. I really enjoyed English and was very good at it, though I think the class thought I was better at it than I was.

[Cookie]

This thread brings back memories. ;[

[Madame Adequate]

I absolutely HATE it when people I barely know think they're allowed to criticize my hygienic habits when my acne gets really bad just because they have acne too.

They should really be aware that acne isn't affected by hygiene if they have it.

[Jessweeee♪]

I absolutely HATE it when people I barely know think they're allowed to criticize my hygienic habits when my acne gets really bad just because they have acne too.

They should really be aware that acne isn't affected by hygiene if they have it.

You'd think so!

[Vincent, Thunder God]

BUT IT IS SUCH A FUN SUBJECT. Can none of you see the fun? ;__;
I find it so easy in comparison to every other subject. All you have to do is make connotations and PEE! (point. example. explanation) simple ;;

Well it really does depend. I personally find that it's my easiest subject too, I'm a writer by trade and therefore it's easy. It's also fun IF I'm given some creative freedom, but often as not I'm asked mind-numbing questions such as Manus gave examples of, like "How does X character feel on page X, paragraph X, provide examples and citations." Give me a break! I knew how the character felt when I read it!


Simple, yet mind numbingly boring. And the fact that the examiner has a mark scheme which marks you right or wrong on how you personally interpret the book, is stupid.

Exactly!


Maybe it's just a female thing. The only people who were actually interested in the subject iirc were girls, the rest of us slept.

I strongly disagree, I've always loved reading and writing and I'm a guy. What I don't love, is as Manus says, the endless analyzing.



Sux4u. Well then it's your own fault that English Lit fails for you. My teacher encourages us to put down our own thoughts, as there is never a right answer.

I absolutely love studying poetry! I've just finished cluster 1, or 2, or whichever cluster includes Vultures and Limbo (LIMBO.. LIKE ME).

Yeah, your teacher. Some of the best teacher's I've had were English teachers, but I've also had an equal amount that give pointless questions. I doubt Manus' attitude is the problem here as you seem to suggest, since I've always been extremely polite with teachers, but when I became too independent in my ideas, and diverged too far from their narrow-minded vision of what I should think, they told me off.

The Ceej is right, school IS meant to condition one to conform to society's overly specific demands. Of course there will be good teachers like yours' who encourage free thought, but many others have been in the same job for so long they're bitter and grumpy and really don't give a damn about my opinions on literature, in fact, some contest them at every turn and give me nonsense about not answering the question, when I'd just written an essay much longer than required doing just that!

[Iceglow]

I have to say, I'm a writer by trade too. However I hate being told what I can and cannot read or write about. I had to do Dubliners by James Joyce and I hated it so much I in the end was relieved I had to quit the course.

[Peegee]

All the things I really don't like are completely petty and I get over them fast:

- slow drivers on the road


...that's all. I sat here staring at the screen and can't come up with anything that pisses me off. I'm almost always happy and almost always stress free. Sometimes I get stressed but I get over it or it passes.

Damn Neel, you completely changed PG that one time you said everything was temporal.

[Zeldy]

Sux4u. Well then it's your own fault that English Lit fails for you. My teacher encourages us to put down our own thoughts, as there is never a right answer.

I absolutely love studying poetry! I've just finished cluster 1, or 2, or whichever cluster includes Vultures and Limbo (LIMBO.. LIKE ME).

Yeah, your teacher. Some of the best teacher's I've had were English teachers, but I've also had an equal amount that give pointless questions. I doubt Manus' attitude is the problem here as you seem to suggest, since I've always been extremely polite with teachers, but when I became too independent in my ideas, and diverged too far from their narrow-minded vision of what I should think, they told me off.


My teacher is like assistant head of English, so really what she does is right, what all these nasty, groggy teachers do is wrong, I always wonder why people like that bother teaching if they just cannot be bothered; It's not a job you can just 'switch off' from. We are a top set group, though and generally those sets do get more advantages as a teacher trust them to not make up ludicrous assumptions about a book cause they assume that we know our stuff.

Sometimes, though, on some books a teacher (atleast my school anyway) actually know exactly what the author/poet meant, and if you stray too far out then obviously they have to stop you, it is an academic subject at the end of the day.

This is all just opinions though. Most people I know thing I am absolutely stupid and crazy for loving English so much. I just find it so easy, which is why I like it because I struggle in pretty much every other subject. Everything is there in front of you, you don't have to remember much.

[Quindiana Jones]

Ignorant people annoy me. Don't get me wrong, everyone's ignorant at some point. But people who don't accept it when they're wrong and just roll their eyes. I found out today that my definition of a word wasn't quite accurate, did I ignore the correction and assume myself as a much higher ranking human? No. I said "Hmm...seems my vocabulary needs revising. Cheers." because I'm awesome and can accept when I'm wrong.

Moral is: If you're an ignorant dumbass, no one cares about your views or opinions.

[Vincent, Thunder God]

Sux4u. Well then it's your own fault that English Lit fails for you. My teacher encourages us to put down our own thoughts, as there is never a right answer.

I absolutely love studying poetry! I've just finished cluster 1, or 2, or whichever cluster includes Vultures and Limbo (LIMBO.. LIKE ME).

Yeah, your teacher. Some of the best teacher's I've had were English teachers, but I've also had an equal amount that give pointless questions. I doubt Manus' attitude is the problem here as you seem to suggest, since I've always been extremely polite with teachers, but when I became too independent in my ideas, and diverged too far from their narrow-minded vision of what I should think, they told me off.


My teacher is like assistant head of English, so really what she does is right, what all these nasty, groggy teachers do is wrong, I always wonder why people like that bother teaching if they just cannot be bothered; It's not a job you can just 'switch off' from. We are a top set group, though and generally those sets do get more advantages as a teacher trust them to not make up ludicrous assumptions about a book cause they assume that we know our stuff.

Sometimes, though, on some books a teacher (atleast my school anyway) actually know exactly what the author/poet meant, and if you stray too far out then obviously they have to stop you, it is an academic subject at the end of the day.

Why should a teacher have to gain trust not to be making "ludicrous assumptions" in the first place? I believe a completely off-topic response to a question, or not answering the question at all, is grounds for marking the answer as 0, but when I was asked for a specific opinion on a specific part of a book and that scene's theme, I'll meet that requirement, but I'm not changing my opinion just because it's considered to be "straying out too far" and I don't think it's fair to be marked 0 with my teacher disagreeing with my opinion. I believe I have a right to my opinions and to express them when asked, and I don't believe it's right for my teacher to give me a 0. I thought the reason books with more and more controversial themes were presented the higher you progress through the grades was to encourage people to become more and more open-minded and draw their own conclusions based on topics perhaps not yet introduced to them. I don't think controversial topics are raised just so I come to a difficult, challenging conclusion in my outline of the theme and my opinion on it only to have my teacher disagree and mark 0. I kept to the requirement, I analyzed the theme as asked, I'm not going to conform to one teacher's personal opinion of "actually knowing exactly what the author/poet meant" because you'll realize that, even with teachers, everyone has their own wildly original idea "of what the author meant." That's as it should be, but any attempt to force students who disagree with the teachers own opinions by taking away all my marks in an outrage.

Don't I read to be introduced to issues without being bashed over the head with the author's opinions, making my analysis of his message all to obvious? Your ideas sound like what might be more realistic of a simplistic level of elementary required reading in which the theme was always obvious to me all along, but then, I was never asked my opinion then, merely completely explicit, right or wrong questions "what did X character do on page 70?" It was evident to the teachers that I was far beyond that stage even then, as I showed eagerness to explore the questions more, to state why the character did that and how it influenced the theme of the book,the teachers who even cared a whit about the quality of my work at all, cared about the stories I was writing when they only thought I couldn't even understand the concept of fiction, and was relegated to a diary in which most of my peers wrote a sentence, and I pages of narrative, not just about my day, but with in-depth self-analysis of how it made me feel to boot.

By your arguments, having opinions of a controversial complex theme is irrelevant when everyone should immediately agree the book is summed up by one person's opinion, and reading would be pointless altogether, as it would just be commonly accepted among everyone that one book always leaves the same emotional response and the same affect on learning for everyone, and that every student would automatically conform to that stance or be insane. But still, how can you just know his opinion is right without even reading the book, and I mean really reading the book. There is never any real hidden proof of which side the author is on, since the issue already raises so many different opinions the author feels pressured to remain objective, and readers must come to their own conclusions. He can try to present the tale in such a way that might sway the reader to the side of the conflict he favors, but if he immediately states the side he disagrees with is wrong, he'd immediately lose any credibility as an author of fiction. Nonfiction is for essays, fiction can have themes the author feels very importantly about, but he can't just assume it's an essay and he can act as if all his points are fact and proof of his correct opinion, because he's not in a debate about real life, he's entering a world of his own imagination, that must not be completely defined by how he perceives the world now, or there is no creativity.

Yet somehow you think that when your teacher is asking you to take whatever side your teacher thinks the writer is on, and insists you must "not stray too far" from what they wrongly believe is their definitive interpretation of a controversial issue presented objectively, in fiction, you must agree, or you should fail! Authors often say that their original message in the work was completely disregarded in the curriculum because it was over-analyzed by each teacher to find a way for a right or wrong answer to be based on what should be subjectively viewed in the first place. If you'd believed there might be another, say, worthwhile opinion, so that the entire world didn't all agree on what's right or wrong, maybe the opinion of the writer himself, what he personally felt as the message intended, and his own personal reason for writing the novel, his vision for its creation, was at all relevant, you you could have read it, straight from him, in an interview. But no, why would the writer know what opinion he really has of his work if it conflicts with your teacher's view of right and wrong? :rolleyes2

As long as I'm asked for a specific opinion based on a part of a thematically complex novel, I can't possibly be wrong in my opinion if it's also answers what was asked because I was asked what I thought, and since it's meant, by the author, to be subjectively interpreted, by the reader, the teacher shouldn't deduct marks if he merely disagrees. After all, if I wasn't meant to have my own opinion, why should I gain any inspiration from my own opinions of fictional character, to be inspired to create something different. And they wonder why all the media made is so repetitive and unoriginal, when students can't even feel ... different... about a novel, different enough to want to make their own novel outlining their own opinion that they came to based on other books, when they aren't encouraged. Ironically, many people consume that same rehashed media, because they were trained to have no opinion.

Furthermore, even without consideration to formulating my own free thought, why should I have to over analyze every little detail of a novel when I want to just take the book for what it is, a whole work, not fragmented into many questions picked, usually, from thousands of sentences, or 100s of pages?

By your logic, if you were to write your own novel, I could invalidate your reason for writing it by exposing it to millions of kids who were not to think of it as they chose, because I happened to be an Eng. lit. teacher and said I had the definitive view of the novel, without ever consulting you, and proceeded to force all those children to agree with me, or they'd "stray too far." I could select exactly what tiny segments of the book to highlight, as if I were you, the author, and knew exactly what the key events of the book were to properly highlight the major theme I want to present.

That's all Manus and me are trying to say - we don't believe that's a way to actually formulate your own idea of the novel, but rather systematically remove all enjoyment of the novel through tonnes of endless analyzing while having whatever views seem... different... to be torn to shreds.

I'll bet it's easy, if you can just repeat exactly what your teacher thinks about the novel, he or she will clearly try to convince you, and slightly alter the words. Easy, but you're just being programmed to think the way he is. Either that, or you don't care what he thinks, and go into your next class prepared to completely undermine your previous work's "opinions" if your next teacher feels differently. Either way, hardly of any practical use in learning.



Moral is: If you're an ignorant dumbass, no one cares about your views or opinions.

I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong within reason, but there is no right or wrong opinion on a fictional work and never should be. See above comments if you need any further logic than that, it seems Zeldy does.

[Old Manus]

My successful troll post is successful

[Jess]

Hypocrites grind my gears.

[Madame Adequate]

Holy crap, VTG, you DID just write a novel.

What grinds my gears is the way everything has to have some hidden meanings. Sometimes, when an author writes something, all they meant is what they wrote! But that's not a criticism of teachers so much as the entire art-fag culture surrounding art itself.

[Old Manus]

What grinds my gears is the way everything has to have some hidden meanings. Sometimes, when an author writes something, all they meant is what they wrote! But that's not a criticism of teachers so much as the entire art-fag culture surrounding art itself.QF fucking T

[LanceOfTime]

Bad grammar...Bad spelling....people who basically satanify(if thats a word) smokers....people who are judgemental :)....and people who live to be just like others(i know thats judgemental)...hypocrisy is human nature i suppose

[Quindiana Jones]

Moral is: If you're an ignorant dumbass, no one cares about your views or opinions.

I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong within reason, but there is no right or wrong opinion on a fictional work and never should be. See above comments if you need any further logic than that, it seems Zeldy does.

I never once mentioned anything to do with having a differing opinion on fictional works. Clearly you misunderstood. Don't put words into my mouth just so you can attempt to start an argument with them.

[Zeldy]

This is why I hate replying in big threads :( people always quote me and it SCARES ME ;;

[Old Manus]

Surely you're used to quoting big texts?

ooh sickburn :mog:

[NeoCracker]

My successful troll post is successful

Oh what a beast you have unleashed.

[Zeldy]

Sux4u. Well then it's your own fault that English Lit fails for you. My teacher encourages us to put down our own thoughts, as there is never a right answer.

I absolutely love studying poetry! I've just finished cluster 1, or 2, or whichever cluster includes Vultures and Limbo (LIMBO.. LIKE ME).

Yeah, your teacher. Some of the best teacher's I've had were English teachers, but I've also had an equal amount that give pointless questions. I doubt Manus' attitude is the problem here as you seem to suggest, since I've always been extremely polite with teachers, but when I became too independent in my ideas, and diverged too far from their narrow-minded vision of what I should think, they told me off.

My teacher is like assistant head of English, so really what she does is right, what all these nasty, groggy teachers do is wrong, I always wonder why people like that bother teaching if they just cannot be bothered; It's not a job you can just 'switch off' from. We are a top set group, though and generally those sets do get more advantages as a teacher trust them to not make up ludicrous assumptions about a book cause they assume that we know our stuff.

Sometimes, though, on some books a teacher (atleast my school anyway) actually know exactly what the author/poet meant, and if you stray too far out then obviously they have to stop you, it is an academic subject at the end of the day.

Why should a teacher have to gain trust not to be making "ludicrous assumptions" in the first place? I believe a completely off-topic response to a question, or not answering the question at all, is grounds for marking the answer as 0, but when I was asked for a specific opinion on a specific part of a book and that scene's theme, I'll meet that requirement, but I'm not changing my opinion just because it's considered to be "straying out too far" and I don't think it's fair to be marked 0 with my teacher disagreeing with my opinion. I believe I have a right to my opinions and to express them when asked, and I don't believe it's right for my teacher to give me a 0. I thought the reason books with more and more controversial themes were presented the higher you progress through the grades was to encourage people to become more and more open-minded and draw their own conclusions based on topics perhaps not yet introduced to them. I don't think controversial topics are raised just so I come to a difficult, challenging conclusion in my outline of the theme and my opinion on it only to have my teacher disagree and mark 0. I kept to the requirement, I analyzed the theme as asked, I'm not going to conform to one teacher's personal opinion of "actually knowing exactly what the author/poet meant" because you'll realize that, even with teachers, everyone has their own wildly original idea "of what the author meant." That's as it should be, but any attempt to force students who disagree with the teachers own opinions by taking away all my marks in an outrage.

Don't I read to be introduced to issues without being bashed over the head with the author's opinions, making my analysis of his message all to obvious? Your ideas sound like what might be more realistic of a simplistic level of elementary required reading in which the theme was always obvious to me all along, but then, I was never asked my opinion then, merely completely explicit, right or wrong questions "what did X character do on page 70?" It was evident to the teachers that I was far beyond that stage even then, as I showed eagerness to explore the questions more, to state why the character did that and how it influenced the theme of the book,the teachers who even cared a whit about the quality of my work at all, cared about the stories I was writing when they only thought I couldn't even understand the concept of fiction, and was relegated to a diary in which most of my peers wrote a sentence, and I pages of narrative, not just about my day, but with in-depth self-analysis of how it made me feel to boot.

By your arguments, having opinions of a controversial complex theme is irrelevant when everyone should immediately agree the book is summed up by one person's opinion, and reading would be pointless altogether, as it would just be commonly accepted among everyone that one book always leaves the same emotional response and the same affect on learning for everyone, and that every student would automatically conform to that stance or be insane. But still, how can you just know his opinion is right without even reading the book, and I mean really reading the book. There is never any real hidden proof of which side the author is on, since the issue already raises so many different opinions the author feels pressured to remain objective, and readers must come to their own conclusions. He can try to present the tale in such a way that might sway the reader to the side of the conflict he favors, but if he immediately states the side he disagrees with is wrong, he'd immediately lose any credibility as an author of fiction. Nonfiction is for essays, fiction can have themes the author feels very importantly about, but he can't just assume it's an essay and he can act as if all his points are fact and proof of his correct opinion, because he's not in a debate about real life, he's entering a world of his own imagination, that must not be completely defined by how he perceives the world now, or there is no creativity.

Yet somehow you think that when your teacher is asking you to take whatever side your teacher thinks the writer is on, and insists you must "not stray too far" from what they wrongly believe is their definitive interpretation of a controversial issue presented objectively, in fiction, you must agree, or you should fail! Authors often say that their original message in the work was completely disregarded in the curriculum because it was over-analyzed by each teacher to find a way for a right or wrong answer to be based on what should be subjectively viewed in the first place. If you'd believed there might be another, say, worthwhile opinion, so that the entire world didn't all agree on what's right or wrong, maybe the opinion of the writer himself, what he personally felt as the message intended, and his own personal reason for writing the novel, his vision for its creation, was at all relevant, you you could have read it, straight from him, in an interview. But no, why would the writer know what opinion he really has of his work if it conflicts with your teacher's view of right and wrong? :rolleyes2

As long as I'm asked for a specific opinion based on a part of a thematically complex novel, I can't possibly be wrong in my opinion if it's also answers what was asked because I was asked what I thought, and since it's meant, by the author, to be subjectively interpreted, by the reader, the teacher shouldn't deduct marks if he merely disagrees. After all, if I wasn't meant to have my own opinion, why should I gain any inspiration from my own opinions of fictional character, to be inspired to create something different. And they wonder why all the media made is so repetitive and unoriginal, when students can't even feel ... different... about a novel, different enough to want to make their own novel outlining their own opinion that they came to based on other books, when they aren't encouraged. Ironically, many people consume that same rehashed media, because they were trained to have no opinion.

Furthermore, even without consideration to formulating my own free thought, why should I have to over analyze every little detail of a novel when I want to just take the book for what it is, a whole work, not fragmented into many questions picked, usually, from thousands of sentences, or 100s of pages?

By your logic, if you were to write your own novel, I could invalidate your reason for writing it by exposing it to millions of kids who were not to think of it as they chose, because I happened to be an Eng. lit. teacher and said I had the definitive view of the novel, without ever consulting you, and proceeded to force all those children to agree with me, or they'd "stray too far." I could select exactly what tiny segments of the book to highlight, as if I were you, the author, and knew exactly what the key events of the book were to properly highlight the major theme I want to present.

That's all Manus and me are trying to say - we don't believe that's a way to actually formulate your own idea of the novel, but rather systematically remove all enjoyment of the novel through tonnes of endless analyzing while having whatever views seem... different... to be torn to shreds.

I'll bet it's easy, if you can just repeat exactly what your teacher thinks about the novel, he or she will clearly try to convince you, and slightly alter the words. Easy, but you're just being programmed to think the way he is. Either that, or you don't care what he thinks, and go into your next class prepared to completely undermine your previous work's "opinions" if your next teacher feels differently. Either way, hardly of any practical use in learning.



Moral is: If you're an ignorant dumbass, no one cares about your views or opinions.

I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong within reason, but there is no right or wrong opinion on a fictional work and never should be. See above comments if you need any further logic than that, it seems Zeldy does.

tl;dr most of it, but from what I did, so you're basically saying there is no right answer? well, by your argument English Literature shouldn't be classed as an academic subject then, because teachers just cannot mark you properly. All I was saying that you do have to draw a line somewhere, if someone put "the author introduced the character because he is an alien and likes to eat pie" then that is ludicrous and wrong, THAT is what I meant :p

Also, most of the time my teachers have actually met the poet/author and asked that way. I know that they met the poet, Simon Armitage, and was able to conclude poems such as Homecoming which is completely ambiguous.

"See above comments if you need any further logic than that, it seems Zeldy does."
what the fuck? Oh wow, someone had opposition to your comments so you call them an ignorant dumbass who won't accept when they're wrong? nice. Ofcourse there is a right or wrong answer, yes it could be argued that there shouldn't be but at the end of the day there is, the poet had some reason to put it down and not just 'it sounds good' so yes, there is a right answer. Is it an academic subject, yes or no? By your arguements, English shouldn't be classed as one.

[Heath]

In all fairness the arguments about a lack of originality of arguments in English Literature because you just write down in your essays what your teacher thinks is more a weakness of The Arts than it is of literature specifically. It applies to many more subjects as well, but The Arts in particular. I read On Liberty recently and in it, Mills argues that because people rarely entirely question a judgement properly by looking at something from all angles, examining the counter-arguments and finding out for yourself why it is wrong, rather than being told why it is false and going with it is a problem with people in general and certainly not one exclusive to literature.

At the end of the day, art in all forms is a very subjective thing and what a piece of music, a story or a paint means depends on how we as individuals interpret it. What I get from a piece of art may substantially differ from what you would and I think that's a key thing to keep in mind when studying literature. Perhaps a writer simply used a certain metaphor because it sounded good, but that lack of certainty leaves plenty of room open for speculation and exploration of what something means to the individual and how they interpret it. Literature is really not as useless and flowery as a lot of you seem to be painting it.

[Mizukaze]

People who discuss religion, the existance of god and so on and so forth on the internet. I don't care if you're a Christian or if you're an atheist. You're all idiots and I don't want to see that :skull::skull::skull::skull: because it's circular, stupid and accomplishes nothing. Let people believe whatever the hell they want and stop acting like you're superior to them because you're all equal - equally stupid. I kinda used to consider myself to be an atheist, but because of the way some of them act online - like whiny sons of bitches - I've decided I'm not one anymore. It's not that I think god doesn't exist, it's that I don't care if God exists. Even if there was conclusive proof that he did or did not exist released tomorrow, I wouldn't change how I acted in the slightest. Right now, I'd probably be going to Hell if you want to go by the Christian view of it all, because lying is awesome. I am a turkey! See? Hellbound. Anyway, if it turns out he does exist, well, I couldn't be bothered to live my life how he wants it to be lived. I mean sure, he created me, but I'll buy him a pint in the afterlife to show my appreciation for it and I think he'd be cool with it.
LOLOL Agreed.

[Vincent, Thunder God]

tl;dr most of it
Some English lit student. :p Do you just read what you're told to, or actually anything that's not required? :p Is there any enjoyment of reading there, or is it a mere means to an end to you? :p


but from what I did, so you're basically saying there is no right answer? well, by your argument English Literature shouldn't be classed as an academic subject then, because teachers just cannot mark you properly. All I was saying that you do have to draw a line somewhere, if someone put "the author introduced the character because he is an alien and likes to eat pie" then that is ludicrous and wrong, THAT is what I meant :p

I'm saying that when it comes to an opinion based on art, yes, there is no way to mark based on opinion - other than the effort and creativity evident in the student's work. Opinions should never be discriminated against, but creativity and effort in expressing them should be encouraged. Whether or not the opinion conflicts with the teachers' or indeed the author's, if it was expressed well, that is worth a good mark. Thus, of course English should be a subject, but opinions shouldn't be seen as "right or wrong."



Also, most of the time my teachers have actually met the poet/author and asked that way.

Right, because every English lit teacher has flown all over the world, met every author and interviewed them enough to have the definitive view of their works. :p


I know that they met the poet, Simon Armitage, and was able to conclude poems such as Homecoming which is completely ambiguous.

Or the meaning was simply above your teachers' narrow minded comprehension. :p

Honestly though, everything is ambiguous, which is as it should be, or the very concepts known as "freedom of speech" and "opinion" wouldn't exist. If we can't draw our own conclusions based on our own experiences, and merely saw whatever our authority figures told us was immediately right, our minds would be slaves.


what the smurf? Oh wow, someone had opposi<b></b>tion to your comments so you call them an ignorant dumbass who won't accept when they're wrong? nice.

When did I ever say that? I'm debating, not insulting. If I have insulted you in any way, I humbly apologize. That was not my intention. I am trying to defend your right to have an opinion other than what your teachers might tell you.


Ofcourse there is a right or wrong answer, yes it could be argued that there shouldn't be but at the end of the day there is, the poet had some reason to put it down and not just 'it sounds good' so yes, there is a right answer. Is it an academic subject, yes or no? By your arguements, English shouldn't be classed as one.

Any author has his reason for writing his work, of course. However, the beauty of art is in the viewer, because he or she can choose to apply its truth to his or her own life, whether or not it is the same conclusion made by the author or your teachers. I am sure authors write what they do to have the reader experience his work and somehow be affected in a unique way, not to shove his personal visions of his own work down our throats, though your English teachers seem quite intent to do just that. People wouldn't flock to museums to see famous paintings unless they could see what they wanted in the art, since no one wants to experience something whose meaning is automatically considered fact.

Why else would we read, unless to be influenced and inspired? Why should we read, if only to agree with someone else just because they told you to?



At the end of the day, art in all forms is a very subjective thing and what a piece of music, a story or a paint means depends on how we as individuals interpret it. What I get from a piece of art may substantially differ from what you would and I think that's a key thing to keep in mind when studying literature. Perhaps a writer simply used a certain metaphor because it sounded good, but that lack of certainty leaves plenty of room open for speculation and exploration of what something means to the individual and how they interpret it. Literature is really not as useless and flowery as a lot of you seem to be painting it.

Completely agreed. :)

[Roto13]

Genji just made this for no apparent reason. He also asked me to post it here. Also for no apparent reason.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p76/rih29/rotoburn.png