Ha ha Ha !! It's so fucking true LOL !!

Ha ha Ha !! It's so fucking true LOL !!

Other urls found in this thread:

encyclopediadramatica.se/Ulillillia
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Go kill yourself, mediocre piece of putrid shit. No one is going to miss you.

>like teach... givem e.... a break? xD

Mad, faggot? I'm just sharing this awesome pic. Go kill yourself cunt

kola-lity bait

what kind of author feels the need to describe the colour of someone's curtains for no reason at all? it reminds me of that autistic sonic the hedgehog fanfic where the guy has the hex codes for the colours of everything

What, off the top of his head?

it's not bait. he's obviously joking. nobody could mistake his post for a serious one.

Anyway OP I disagree. While the image does not perfectly express my opinion, in the main I agree with it. Teachers, even at the university level, are prone to misreading.

you suck, loser.

(What I meant when I said 'you suck, loser':
"Many things are at play in making a teacher truly great:
First, they love their subject and have excellent subject knowledge (the two go together). Last year Professor Rob Coe and the Sutton Trust published research into the qualities of the best teachers and this came top of the list.
Good subject knowledge matters not only because at the top of the ability range you need to be able to stretch pupils but also because teachers with good knowledge tend to make lessons for younger children more interesting. They have more substance to be interesting about.
Secondly, they need to have the right personality. Teaching is partly acting, and acting ability helps greatly. Above all you need to be able to control a class, because without good discipline nothing worthwhile can be achieved.
So that means good teachers are those whom pupils will respect - and slightly fear if necessary. They are completely in control of what’s going on around them.
Pupils know the teacher will notice if they are misbehaving or if their work is incomplete or copied from another child and will take action - punish the child, perhaps, or require the work to be redone.
But the best teachers are not disciplinarians. They are a velvet hand in an iron glove. Pupils come to know, over time, that they are warm and generous. But they are not to be messed with. Discipline has to come first.
Good teachers are very hard working, putting a huge effort into preparing lessons, marking work and giving extra time to children who need it.
They are able to manage stress. They are passionate about their school and their pupils, keen for all to do well. They are highly organised, because switching in a few seconds from one class to another, keeping track of individuals, remembering which extra duties they are down for, managing record-keeping and databases - all this requires good organisation.
Thirdly, they need to have certain classroom skills. This is why all ‘unqualified’ teachers need some training, both before they start and throughout their first year of teaching.
They need to be shown how to deliver a lesson with pace and interest, how to use digital resources effectively, how to mark work and record those marks, how to write reports, how best to teach tricky concepts, how to ask questions of pupils in the most effective way.
Finally, they need to have high expectations of their pupils. This is a characteristic of all the best teachers. They are determined that every pupil will master their subject. This attitude sets the scene for everything which follows.
Pupils who produce unsatisfactory work must be made to redo it until they achieve a good level. Pupils will be regularly tested to see whether they have understood and learnt the work; those who do badly will be retested.")

How much shit can you possibly shovel, dimwit? Your post really makes me want to kill myself, it is just that bad. How about you go ahead and close the tab and vow to never post again? I think everyone present in this thread would agree that this is your only course of action. Now go do it before I waste any more of my precious time on your sorry ass.

All jokes aside, fuck academia and fuck institutional artistic analysis.

Damn, there are a lot of high school English teachers on this board.

It depends on what you mean by "true".........

The curtains were blue?

More like the curtains weren't actually curtains.

...

I think he's talking about ulillillia, who is fucking insane. There's a whole ED article about all the crazy shit he's written.

Books are meant to be taken literally? I'd like to see this guy read Lolita or Pale Fire

what is the meaning of lolita

Prose porn. The story is not that important.

>thinks either of those books work with symbols
wow, nabakov plebs can't even understand his purple prose they praise so much

>insults nothing in particular about post/poster
>doesn't acknowledge reason for disgust
>provides nothing other than angry emotional rant
>thinks his opinions/assertions matter at all

I think you are the half-wit who should leave.

you misunderstood those books you giant pleb. and yes there is an object "what the author meant" about them

I can't believe there are so many people interested on literature only as a meme. I mean, not caring about the interpretation of a book or text stated by people that are better prepared than what you could ever be with a mediocre and tiny subhuman mind is just a mistake. Sure, you can't take everything they say as truth, you also have to think and add to the conversation, but considering that the kind of faggots that make and enjoy these kind of retarded shit like OP's image doesn't have any kind of knowledge in actual literary analysis, critique, creation, and/or history the it's just fucking invalid.
You're a retarded manchild if you think your uneducated opinion matters. Either go make something with your life and study like a functional human being, change your hobby to something less hard (You'd probably like minecraft) or just kill yourself. Really. You're wasting resources in order to maintain your fake human disguise. Pathetic.

I know you're illiterate, so I'll show you a TL;DR ("Too long, didn't read", in case you're too dumb to know what it means and too lazy to open another tab to search it) in GREEN, hoping the pretty color won't distract you.

>TL;DR: If you think that image is right, just end it, dissappear, begone, stop dissappointing every single person you'll ever meet.

Fucking culturally-sheltered americans cunts and the beloved hotfart they call "country".

Tables have functional purposes in every day use, which create tangible standards for what's well done.
Food has calories, vitamins and energy yield that can be scientifically measured to give an objective estimate of what's good for you.

Yes, music and literature are subjective and their goodness relies entirely on a person's cultural background and subjective taste, and even those who have consumed the arts for years can only ever give their educated opinion. The use of existing techniques means only that the techniques have been used, not that their use is a virtue of its own.

It heavily depends on the writer themselves

you'd be surprised how many don't really think of using sound, color and other means as aids in characterization and theme.

Either way, if their technique is actually effective you'd know it right away and wouldn't have to "think" about it. The text would speak for itself.

He's obviously talking about Chris Chan.

It seems as though you do not know enough to know how wrong you are.

stop enabling this shitposting cunt by posting in this thread you faggots.

sage or report and move on.

>what kind of author feels the need to describe the colour of someone's curtains for no reason at all?

There's a huge fucking difference between "for no reason at all" and "for this, specific, simple reason that relies on massive over assumption about what was actually intended".

The curtains are blue. The feeling of blueness and the normally associated feelings with it may blend in with the setting of the scene and the interactions that occur within it to create an atmosphere. It may be that the calmness of the blue curtains was introduced to contrast against some violence occurring in the vicinity. Maybe, given additional knowledge, it might imply something about the taste of the character who installed them.

For whatever reason, the curtain are blue, and that in itself is enough. The depth is in the surface and how we experience it.

So true. LOL

Stupid people tends to think deep. so deep that they don't really know what they are thinking about. But it has to be deep to make sure that others don't recognize their stupidity.

Your post is shit.

How is he not correct though? The value of the artistic subjects under discussion is fundamentally subjective here in ways that the more concrete subjects aren't.

Though it's an admittedly shitty way to start a discussion on authorial intent, it's still a valid subject to start a discussion on on a literature board.

You are the shitposter here, my friend.

There are two things going on here.

Clearly someone writing literature is writing to create an effect in the reader. A good writer doesn't just write down a bunch of shit without aim. They might not realize what they are doing all the time -- but they are working towards a goal and to a certain feeling. This is one thing that really marks amateur writing. Character and description without purpose or weight.

But that's not literary analysis. That's just deconstructing storytelling devices. The problem is when people start dreaming up theories about what the work of art is trying to accomplish.

It can be interesting when you are tapping into what the author was writing about. 1984 is obviously about state control. What happens in a lot of literary analysis though, is that someone creates a fucking bizarre theory that is not particularly related to a story and then creates evidence for it. You start to see 'late stage capitalist' or feminist interpretations of books that are clearly not dealing in those ideas.

This should have posted in the sticky

>Tables have functional purposes in every day use, which create tangible standards for what's well done.
subjective to your individual functional use for them.
>Food has calories, vitamins and energy yield that can be scientifically measured to give an objective estimate of what's good for you.
subjective to humans as a species.
everything is subjective or nothing is. it's all built on the same foundation.

The ghost of D&E hangs over lit

but the equivalent of literature's subjectiveness is that you could present an opinion that a sedentary lifestyle man needs 10000kcal a day for maintenance and you'd actually be given a chance to at least try and defend it

>that a sedentary lifestyle man needs 10000kcal a day for maintenance
Some people do.

Fay people need more calories to maintain the same weight. Maintenance is just staying at the same weight. So actually that's objectively true for a lot of Americans

>Fay
Fat*

well ok wow you got me there.
I meant to say 'for staying alive'.

but now I totally give up since you have totally devalued my argument and that obviously means you're totally objectively right that debates work the same way in literature and in medicine

>subjective to humans as a species

Do you even know what the word subjective means?

I'm a teacher and this is spot-on, actually. Are you having trouble in school, buddy?

>It can be interesting when you are tapping into what the author was writing about. 1984 is obviously about state control. What happens in a lot of literary analysis though, is that someone creates a fucking bizarre theory that is not particularly related to a story and then creates evidence for it. You start to see 'late stage capitalist' or feminist interpretations of books that are clearly not dealing in those ideas.
Not sure I agree with this. Reading 1984 and saying it's an allegory for 9/11 is obviously retarded, but a reader is inherently going to be reading through the lens of their own experience and therefore formulating their own readings of a text. Clearly the book was written to have a certain purpose, but I would argue that the purpose of art is to convey/inspire ideas in the reader, and to deny a persons reading of a text based solely on the academically accepted understanding of the text seems pretty shitty considering how it's essentially prohibiting all readings that don't fall in line with what is prescribed by consensus.

>Clearly the book was written to have a certain purpose, but I would argue that the purpose of art is
Pseuds man.

ITT: we pretend 90 IQ public school teachers are capable readers

I don't think you'd bust out your best reading chops either for a bunch of literal children. What English majors do in college is way, way beyond most high school kids, even seniors taking AP classes. English academia is a highly-specialized ivory tower full of bibliophiles and obsessive writers.

Compare that to a classroom of forty kids from the general public with forty different levels of skill, ability, and interest. You're simply not gonna see the kind of stuff you see in Lit Theory. Even if it tried to teach that, most kids wouldn't care. Teachers are stuck pandering to the middle. You... do know that other people have other interests and goals than your own, don't you?

Also, attitudes like the meme in the OP are the reason Common Core has murdered literary reading and instruction in most schools. Just wait until you guys see the damage that's caused.

>Teachers are stuck pandering to the middle.

That's still a stupid excuse to just teach shit that is flat out false and limiting.

Come to my class and teach a lesson that's engaging, active, and turns everyone into geniuses overnight. Please. If you're so good at it, tell me how to do it. I'm okay with being wrong if it leads to my kids learning better. Actually, since you seem to know all the answers, could you be an ambassador from the golden lands of Freshman Lit Theory, and enlighten my profession?

How would you lower your students' affective filters? Are your analogies culturally relevant? What adaptations are you going to make for the English Learners? Special Needs kids? ADHD kids? ASD kids? When you have all these kids in your class at once? How can you prevent fights (verbal or physical)? How are you going to teach critical thinking? What strategies will you use for close reading? What evidence of student learning will you collect? How will you manage your class? How will you handle disruptive or disrespectful kids? How will you handle auditory learners? Kinesthetic? Visual? How will you keep things fresh after six months of this class? How will you get student buy-in to a text? What if they hate it? How will you teach writing? What structures will you use? How will you improve their writing in a way that doesn't discourage their participation? How will you handle annually bloating class sizes with less and less support for your neediest kids? How will you handle twelve hour days? Pay that doesn't align (at least for fifteen years) with your education level? How will you manage (often asinine) parent complaints? Hearing about and reporting on student abuse? Will you feed your hungry kids? How will you stop bullying in your classroom?

That's not anywhere near a complete list. Go fuck yourself, kid. If you were really as smart as you think you are, you'd have realized how difficult it is to get the maximum dining capacity of a Taco Bell to work together on one thing in a predictable, measurable way every single day.

By the way, academia is dying and you'll never ever be a professor ever so get your exit bag ready because ennui and poverty isn't so attractive at 30.

how fucking butthurt piece of shit crying baby are you? i'm not even the guy who you were "debating" but you're a piece of shit

>summer's here already

k tard

it seems like the part you care about is the kids knowing that blue can symbolize all these other things - calmness and sadness etc.

applying that lesson in a situation where it doesn't fit well, though, is annoying.

like the beginning of ulysses there is actually a lot of symbolism going on and it informs the narrative.

It's not as simple as 'curtains are blue' but that's a made up super simplified example anyhow

nigga when the fuck would you teach Ulysses to kids it's like you want to get fired

>The feeling of blueness and the normally associated feelings
What you mean by "normally" is "typically within the culture that I'm familiar with". What's more, I bet you're a privileged white man and you think there's nothing wrong with discriminating against other cultures.

Fuck you

stfu asshole

it was just the first example of competently used symbolism that came to mind, calm down sparky

more like you're a Veeky Forums meme bye

餌です

>By the way, academia is dying and you'll never ever be a professor ever so get your exit bag ready because ennui and poverty isn't so attractive at 30.
Harsh. Also just take up something like surfing and you can squeeze like a few more years out.

I'm Autistic you shitlord

not him but
>What you mean by "normally" is "typically within the culture that I'm familiar with".
ye so what cunt
>What's more, I bet you're a privileged white man
not him but yea so what
>and you think there's nothing wrong with discriminating against other cultures.

there is literally nothing wrong with discriminating against others based on race and discriminating based on culture works even better.

suck it

> cultural appropriation of Blues as a white thijg
Swivel cracker

the joke was there, but the execution flopped

4/10

Black jokes matter Harold

it was just the first example of competently used symbolism that came to mind, calm down sparky

Thanks for the new pasta!

and also there's no author

ha! ha! ha!

If the novel was going for some Great Gatsby style of using color as symbolism.

...

>Teachers are stuck pandering to the middle.
maybe the middle doesn't give a fuck about literature because they have a shitty teacher?

...

>it heavily depends

I wasn't prepared for this metaphor to work but I suppose it does

It's a result of the retarded "death of the author" idea in which the author's input is meaningless. An example of this is the movie 'district 9' which the director/writer had specifically said wasn't supposed to be a representation of apartheid but retards go "WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THIS? IF IT MEANS APARTHEID TO ME THEN IT IS ABOUT APARTHEID".

Holy shit, you're such a faggot.

What, this assumes that progress in what one knows about something increases together with the time spent on it, which is not necessarily true when it comes to analyzing (albeit that the chance is slimmer if one studied for so many years)

>thread up for 18 hours and nobody has posted this
Sure is neo-Veeky Forums in here

>ayo when we finna learn bout when wuz kings n shit

I love you.

It is true though.
Tables have a physical structure with physical properties, the carpenter is right
Food has physical properties that affect our bodies, so the dietitian is right
Music is a form of arm, and so it is an opinion, the maestro cannot be correct, because it's an opinion
Books are a form of art, and so it is an opinion, the professor cannot be correct, because it's an opinion.
That simple enough for ya?

No, he's obviously talking about Ulillillia, you dip.

encyclopediadramatica.se/Ulillillia

>First, they love their subject and have excellent subject knowledge (the two go together).
I'm a maths teacher who consistently gets praised for having excellent subject knowledge, however, I do not love maths.

Obviously there are exceptions that prove the rule

Look at her, another mediocre, unimportant, unremarkable semi-sentient being. Go get raped by your younger sister, shitface.