SMH Article on Paper 2 (3 Viewers)

[RyddeckerSMP]

How about a nationwide thing for Year 10? What do you say about that?

 

[marydh]

brilliant australian article in reply

Title: STICKING TO THE BOOK
Source: Australian, The; 22/10/2005

Books are better for student study than digital detritus

YESTERDAY The Sydney Morning Herald quoted HSC students denouncing
critics of Year 12 English courses -- we think they meant us. Apparently
because ``the media lies'' it is important for young people
to know what the reptiles of the press are up to, the students
said. Presumably by studying episodes of the D-Generation's Frontline
TV series, which is on the NSW syllabus. Or the book jacket
that students in that state can study. Not the book, just the cover
and publisher's blurb. Or any of the modern movies that are
on course lists around the country. Or blogs and other digital
resources, including the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission
website -- which is also set for study in NSW, even though
the organisation no longer exists.

Using literature to learn how to critically analyse what authors are
up to should be a core component of any English course. But the
world is not short of good books suited for the task. Books --
not blogs, not digital ephemera, but books, the artefacts that really
inquisitive students will find behind the paperback cover set
for study. Reading a whole book takes time and discipline, and
it is about the best way imaginable to learn how to analyse authorial
intent and interpret their arguments.

But all that examining the ATSIC site will do is expose students to
propaganda from an organisation that in the end represented only
itself. There are all sorts of objective sources that set out the
condition of indigenous Australians that could be provided to
support any of the many books by Aboriginal authors about the poison
of racial prejudice. The study of ATSIC is irrelevant. And The
Australian believes that studying the D-Generation for advanced
English courses betrays the educational interests of students and
will appal parents who want kids to develop a love of literature.
And if students are really interested in analysing the motives
of powerful organisations, here is a question to critically consider:
``The study of senior school English is shaped by a contempt
for the Western canon and a belief held by education theorists
that all texts are equal. Discuss.''

Copyright 2005 / The Weekend Australian.

this article makes so many valid points...it should be turned into a website and studied for 'telling the truth'. but we'd only be examining the visual aspects, of course!

 

[fleepbasding]

this article makes so many valid points...it should be turned into a website and studied for 'telling the truth'. but we'd only be examining the visual aspects, of course!

yes, it would've been great for the exam question, there is a shite-load of selectivity and emphasis in there.

that guy is an arrogant, reactionary fool who I wouldn't let near any syllabus if I could help it.

I can't believe this ridiculous notion that we don't study books! All of my texts are 'books'. Their is so much other bullshit in the article that I would point out if I had the time/will. I don't think I need to as most of you will be able see through the idiocy of it.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I can't believe this ridiculous notion that we don't study books! All of my texts are 'books'. Their is so much other bullshit in the article that I would point out if I had the time/will. I don't think I need to as most of you will be able see through the idiocy of it.

Case in point that if you don't have the basics down you just fail at life.

On what that guy said, I disagree with him. I do believe you can learn significant ammounts by studying any text... but certainly a wider range would be a little better.

 

[_dhj_]

Case in point that if you don't have the basics down you just fail at life.

On what that guy said, I disagree with him. I do believe you can learn significant ammounts by studying any text... but certainly a wider range would be a little better.

What's with all this typo fascism? Who cares.. we all make mistakes

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Of course, but I think that people make so many mistakes (which don't just occur on internet forums) just out of highschool you have to question how well we're being taught.

 

[_dhj_]

Well.. grammar and spelling mistakes aren't a problem as long as the message that is being conveyed isn't lost.

Remember, we don't live for discourse. Discourse lives for us.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well.. grammar and spelling mistakes aren't a problem as long as the message that is being conveyed isn't lost.

Remember, we don't live for discourse. Discourse lives for us.

Yes, but in order for the message to be conveyed you need extensive rules.

 

[_dhj_]

True, although I think you'd have to be a pretty strict formalist to believe that as soon as a couple of spelling/grammar mistakes are made, the intended message is lost. There are other factors that determine the meaning - most notably the context and the responder (sorry for using syllabus language )

 

[miapants]

okay, instead of a debate about "typo fascism", i think a discussion of what was published in the article would be better... how about we just attribute all of the typos to titivillus? when the monks were printing bibles and other great tomes in their monasteries, they invented a demon who carried around a sack full of 1000 typos, which he'd inlcude in the texts being printed by the monks, apparently to fuck with god and the church. so lets just take it as a given that titivillus is at work, ignore the typos unless "we r torking lyk lil txting hilary duf fanz", and personally attack this elitist bogan. it's interesting, isn't it, that a totally non-conservative publication such as the australian is so scathing in regard to ATSIC. perhaps an investigation into the different portrayals of malcolm fraser in his various biographies woulld be more acceptable to the author of this wonderful editorial?

 

[Theodopolis]

What's with all this typo fascism?

.


Pedanticism much?


.

 

[xbitterflyx]

If all of our texts were books then 1) We be so bored we would kill our english teachers and 2) We wouldnt learn the different types of texts, how they portray certain things and so on...

By learning other types of texts other than books we are actually learning more for example I did Emma and clueless and by watching Clueless I could understand Emma better but if all we had to study was books then I wouldnt have that deeper understanding.

But thats just my opinion

 

[nwatts]

Well.. grammar and spelling mistakes aren't a problem as long as the message that is being conveyed isn't lost.

Remember, we don't live for discourse. Discourse lives for us.

But the message conveyed will always differ if a word is misspelt, or if sentences are poorly structured. You'll give the reader the impression that you're an idiot!

Literal meaning may not be lost, but spelling is important because it's reflective of the author. If someone can't spell something properly, or doesn't know proper grammar, it's an inditement on their literacy skills at a very basic level. If you want the literal meaning behind a sentence to be at the foremost of the reader's mind, you will want to make sure the syntax of what you have composed is sound - otherwise the (irritating) nature of the author will drown out whatever meaning that is intended.

 

[_dhj_]

But the message conveyed will always differ if a word is misspelt, or if sentences are poorly structured. You'll give the reader the impression that you're an idiot!

Literal meaning may not be lost, but spelling is important because it's reflective of the author. If someone can't spell something properly, or doesn't know proper grammar, it's an inditement on their literacy skills at a very basic level. If you want the literal meaning behind a sentence to be at the foremost of the reader's mind, you will want to make sure the syntax of what you have composed is sound - otherwise the (irritating) nature of the author will drown out whatever meaning that is intended.

The decreasing importance of correct spelling and proper grammar reflects the evolution of the medium. Let's face it - when your reading a novel or a traditional print-based text, it's gonna have gone through numerous editing stages. Likewise, shorter, informal texts such as letters, internet articles etc are likely to have gone through a spell-checker. In fact, it's probably only in these type of forums that the composer's spelling knowledge becomes mildly relevant. But then again, one could just run a forum post through a spell checker if he wanted to. In reality, those who choose to point out spelling/grammar mistakes do so as they disagree with the content of the post, and thus become determined to destroy its credibility by any means.

 

[nwatts]

In reality, those who choose to point out spelling/grammar mistakes do so as they disagree with the content of the post, and thus become determined to destroy its credibility by any means.

You'll find that those who point out mistakes (like myself) won't destroy the credibility of what's said, but who has said it. Because, as I mentioned before, spelling/grammar mistakes are a reflection of the author's basic literacy skills. 'If one cannot compose a sentence properly, why should I listen to what they have to say?' (It's elitist, yes.. but it's reality - i'm not going to highly regard the comments of someone who can't construct a legible sentence).

There are always exceptions, though - and typos are one of them.

 

[_dhj_]

I don't think it will destroy anyone's credibility - maybe to those who share your elitist outlook, but to the rest of us, you will just look like a elitist (in the pejorative sense).

 

[woodsier]

You guys are all shitcakes, stop arguing.

 

[Counterfeit]

Ahahah. Oh I'm devastated that this argument stopped before I had a chance to participate.

It kept me amused for about 12 pages, albeit it was the same points being made over and over and over but it was enchanting.

I'm impressed with some of your verbiage. Sheesh kebabs, some of you have magnificent (if at times superfluous) ways of putting your points across.

Keeping that in mind I still think the most accurate point made in this whole debate was simply:

"most of this module (re: telling the truth) is complete and utter shite" ( courtesy of Shroedinger I believe...)

Brilliantly said!

 

[Ultraviolent]

<3 for the word "superfluous".

You'll find that those who point out mistakes (like myself) won't destroy the credibility of what's said, but who has said it. Because, as I mentioned before, spelling/grammar mistakes are a reflection of the author's basic literacy skills. 'If one cannot compose a sentence properly, why should I listen to what they have to say?'

You are essentially correct. The whole point of an Ad Hominen (to the man) attack is to dismiss an argument without really addressing it. While pointing out one's lack of grammar is not as blatant as something along the lines of "Pffft! He's a liberal, his opinion means nothing", it's still a logical fallacy. A damn effective one, though.

 

[nwatts]

<3 for the word "superfluous".



You are essentially correct. The whole point of an Ad Hominen (to the man) attack is to dismiss an argument without really addressing it. While pointing out one's lack of grammar is not as blatant as something along the lines of "Pffft! He's a liberal, his opinion means nothing", it's still a logical fallacy. A damn effective one, though.

Sshhh! Logical fallacies make arguments entertaining.