I taught the Iliad to Chinese teenagers (2021)(scholars-stage.org)
scholars-stage.org
I taught the Iliad to Chinese teenagers (2021)
https://scholars-stage.org/how-i-taught-the-iliad-to-chinese-teenagers/
380 comments
One reason I love the Iliad is that the closer you look, the more of a paradox it becomes.
For example, in parts of Iliad bronze is given as a valuable gift. In other parts, it’s thrown away on the heads of spears and arrows. So was it composed before or after the fall of the Bronze Age?
Likewise, some wedding have dowries, others have bride-prices. You can’t have both! But Homer has no problem going back and forth.
It’s almost like Homers trying to confuse future historians.
There’s actually a thesis that the Iliad was intended to be heard by clubs of war veterans on public holidays. The veterans would get the inside jokes, but the civilians would miss them.
For example, in parts of Iliad bronze is given as a valuable gift. In other parts, it’s thrown away on the heads of spears and arrows. So was it composed before or after the fall of the Bronze Age?
Likewise, some wedding have dowries, others have bride-prices. You can’t have both! But Homer has no problem going back and forth.
It’s almost like Homers trying to confuse future historians.
There’s actually a thesis that the Iliad was intended to be heard by clubs of war veterans on public holidays. The veterans would get the inside jokes, but the civilians would miss them.
Even today there are places where both a bride-price and dowry both happen. There is no reason they cannot coexist - because they do.
The bride-price is a sort of contract of exclusivity payment from the groom's parents to the bride's parents, and the dowry is from the bride's parents to the groom/couple in order for the bride to have a certain level of life. They serve entirely different purposes.
The bride-price is a sort of contract of exclusivity payment from the groom's parents to the bride's parents, and the dowry is from the bride's parents to the groom/couple in order for the bride to have a certain level of life. They serve entirely different purposes.
> the dowry is from the bride's parents to the groom/couple in order for the bride to have a certain level of life
There are actually three distinct concepts that can all occur within the same culture:
- the dowry is paid by the bride's family and can either go to the groom or the groom's family
- the bride price is paid by the groom's family and can either go to the bride or the bride's family
- the dower is paid by the groom or the groom's family to the bride
The dower specifically functions to protect the bride against poverty in the event the husband dies or becomes unfaithful or neglectful. The bride price or dowry can either function as payment for securing the bride/groom into wedlock or to fund the couple's new family.
The terms "bride price" and "dowry" seem to be only defined by who pays it and either can refer to something paid to the other side's family or to the newly wed couple. That distinction seems to be entirely down to the cultural attitudes.
IIRC there are even cultures where a bride price or dowry paid to the other side's family (as a form of "reimbursement" or "exclusivity payment" as you say) depends more on the relative status of each family, so a higher status family would be paid either way even if the amounts might differ due to the way inheritances are handled (e.g. if only the sons get to inherit their parents property, a son might be more valuable than a daughter). Keep in mind that marriages often also served to unite the two families/tribes/dynasties as a form of diplomacy.
There are actually three distinct concepts that can all occur within the same culture:
- the dowry is paid by the bride's family and can either go to the groom or the groom's family
- the bride price is paid by the groom's family and can either go to the bride or the bride's family
- the dower is paid by the groom or the groom's family to the bride
The dower specifically functions to protect the bride against poverty in the event the husband dies or becomes unfaithful or neglectful. The bride price or dowry can either function as payment for securing the bride/groom into wedlock or to fund the couple's new family.
The terms "bride price" and "dowry" seem to be only defined by who pays it and either can refer to something paid to the other side's family or to the newly wed couple. That distinction seems to be entirely down to the cultural attitudes.
IIRC there are even cultures where a bride price or dowry paid to the other side's family (as a form of "reimbursement" or "exclusivity payment" as you say) depends more on the relative status of each family, so a higher status family would be paid either way even if the amounts might differ due to the way inheritances are handled (e.g. if only the sons get to inherit their parents property, a son might be more valuable than a daughter). Keep in mind that marriages often also served to unite the two families/tribes/dynasties as a form of diplomacy.
In the Iliad, Agamemnon offers Achilles one of his daughter (whichever Achilles wants) with “no bride price, and full dowry.”
Agamemnon is the leader of the Greeks, but he is of slightly lower social standing than Achilles.
He is the leader because he agreed to sacrifice his daughter to the gods to guarantee success victory in war, but this victory will only happen if Achilles joins him.
Agamemnon has tons of daughters and no sons. He is extremely willing to expend his daughters. This may or may not be because he doesn’t want to pay their dowries.
In return, Achilles must recognize Agamemnons kingship, and agree to follow orders.
Achilles knows from divine prophecy if he accepts Agamemnons offer he will die very soon, so he doesn’t really care. The marriage isn’t happening regardless.
But Achilles wants to join the battle, and die, for personal reasons (vengeance) unrelated to Agamemnon.
So the offer of “marriage with no bride price and full dowry” is just a sad pathetic joke.
It’s a way for Agamemnon to seem like he’s in control, and to remind the Greeks why he’s king - because he’s a narcissistic psychopath who will do necessary, but horrible things nobody else will do.
The distinction between bride price and dowry only serves to show Agamemnon is making up the rules and the whole thing is a farce.
Agamemnon is the leader of the Greeks, but he is of slightly lower social standing than Achilles.
He is the leader because he agreed to sacrifice his daughter to the gods to guarantee success victory in war, but this victory will only happen if Achilles joins him.
Agamemnon has tons of daughters and no sons. He is extremely willing to expend his daughters. This may or may not be because he doesn’t want to pay their dowries.
In return, Achilles must recognize Agamemnons kingship, and agree to follow orders.
Achilles knows from divine prophecy if he accepts Agamemnons offer he will die very soon, so he doesn’t really care. The marriage isn’t happening regardless.
But Achilles wants to join the battle, and die, for personal reasons (vengeance) unrelated to Agamemnon.
So the offer of “marriage with no bride price and full dowry” is just a sad pathetic joke.
It’s a way for Agamemnon to seem like he’s in control, and to remind the Greeks why he’s king - because he’s a narcissistic psychopath who will do necessary, but horrible things nobody else will do.
The distinction between bride price and dowry only serves to show Agamemnon is making up the rules and the whole thing is a farce.
Thank you! I did not know that!
> For example, in parts of Iliad bronze is given as a valuable gift. In other parts, it’s thrown away on the heads of spears and arrows. So was it composed before or after the fall of the Bronze Age?
I'm confused by what paradox do you see there - the most useful metal you can get always gets put on spears and arrows, it's not "throwing things away", it's the most important usage for high quality metal, and it is a valuable gift exactly because it allows you to make more or better spearheads and arrowheads. What would they be saving for otherwise? Shovels are important, but your spear is literally a matter of life and death and does get priority.
Also, it's not generally destroyed or discarded, all the valuable stuff does get picked up from battlefield afterwards.
I'm confused by what paradox do you see there - the most useful metal you can get always gets put on spears and arrows, it's not "throwing things away", it's the most important usage for high quality metal, and it is a valuable gift exactly because it allows you to make more or better spearheads and arrowheads. What would they be saving for otherwise? Shovels are important, but your spear is literally a matter of life and death and does get priority.
Also, it's not generally destroyed or discarded, all the valuable stuff does get picked up from battlefield afterwards.
For a modern analogy: we treat gold as a luxury good we convert into prized jewelry and yet we use it to make disposable technology we carelessly throw away once no longer fit for use.
And although of course the amounts of precious metals in modern hardware are minute compared to that in luxury jewelry, we still send that hardware scrap over to underdeveloped countries where the precious metals are extracted with great harm to health and lives. If anything, picking up the arrows, spears and swords off a battlefield is a much easier, safer and more rewarding process, making the use of precious bronze for those wares much less wasteful and frivolous.
And although of course the amounts of precious metals in modern hardware are minute compared to that in luxury jewelry, we still send that hardware scrap over to underdeveloped countries where the precious metals are extracted with great harm to health and lives. If anything, picking up the arrows, spears and swords off a battlefield is a much easier, safer and more rewarding process, making the use of precious bronze for those wares much less wasteful and frivolous.
I'm not seeing the paradox.
Gold today is considered a valuable gift.
It is also consumed at 70 tonnes per quarter in the global consumer electronics sector, much of which is later discarded.
https://www.gold.org/goldhub/research/gold-demand-trends/gol...
Both valued and wasted can be true for bronze as it is for gold.
Gold today is considered a valuable gift.
It is also consumed at 70 tonnes per quarter in the global consumer electronics sector, much of which is later discarded.
https://www.gold.org/goldhub/research/gold-demand-trends/gol...
Both valued and wasted can be true for bronze as it is for gold.
Gold is definitely not discarded, it's usually recycled out of electronics.
Out of the electronics that are recycled, sure.
Currently thats less than 20% of the electronic waste generated.
Currently thats less than 20% of the electronic waste generated.
Annual e-waste generation:
The world generated 53.6 Mt of e-waste in 2019. That's an average of 7.3 kg per capita.
The amount of e-waste generated is expected to grow at about 3.5% per year and will reach 74.7 Mt by 2030.
E-waste recycling rate: In 2019 only 17.4% of the e-waste was collected and recycled.
Also as far as I'm aware most of the electronics recycling happens in underdeveloped countries, often by literally shoving circuit boards into vats of acid. There's money in e-recycling but it doesn't justify the expenses of doing it in a more sophisticated way than that, especially one that requires paying workers a reasonable wage and maintaining workplace safety requirements.
We aren’t “gifting” our enemies gold debris on the battlefield.
* ipsum2 has asserted that "Gold is definitely not discarded, it's usually recycled out of electronics."
* many HN comments strongly suggest that China is the sleeping enemy of the USofA (not my position, but it's a commonly held stance here).
* a great deal of US electronics is sourced from Chinese companies.
Is China gifting a country that considers China an enemy gold debris?
* many HN comments strongly suggest that China is the sleeping enemy of the USofA (not my position, but it's a commonly held stance here).
* a great deal of US electronics is sourced from Chinese companies.
Is China gifting a country that considers China an enemy gold debris?
[deleted]
We are not throwing middles at China. They are a trade partner.
If we assume that both sides of historical battles were either expecting to win or desperate enough to have no other option than fight (because why would a commander field a battle they could avoid if they don't think they'd win?): neither were they "gifting" their enemies bronze debris, except incidentally.
That also ignores that historically most battles weren't fought to the bloody end because there was no point to do so once it was clear who would come out victorious. More likely, at some point the nobles would retreat or surrender and the common folk would be routed and flee to avoid being massacred.
Even as late as WW1 soldiers would often be hesitant to kill their enemies because as it turns out killing other humans actually goes against our nature. Even in WW2 German soldiers and reserve police officers tasked with carrying out massacres had to rely on peer pressure and self-deception (i.e. trying to rationalize their actions as morally good[0]). It took us decades to refine the process of dehumanization that now allows modern soldiers to calmly wipe out dozens or hundreds of targets at the push of a button.
Also with trained professional soldiers in ancient times the cost of a single soldier would easily rival or even outclass the cost of their equipment. And on the occasion that common folk would have military-grade gear available to them it would more likely be a prized artifact passed down across generations.
[0]: There's one account of a German reserve police officer who participated in the massacres in Poland and specifically asked his comrades that he would kill the children but only after they would first kill their mothers because then he would be doing the children a favor because they could not go on living after seeing their mothers killed. Yes, it's twisted logic and ethically despicable but it served him to rationalize his cruel actions as a moral good and remain the hero of his own story. In fact, after the war many of them would be appalled at being considered war criminals rather that victims of injustice for having "had to" commit the massacres despite there being no formal or legal consequences to not participating. Those refusing to participate would be considered "traitors" by their comrades for "not sharing the burden" but not face any form of punishment.
That also ignores that historically most battles weren't fought to the bloody end because there was no point to do so once it was clear who would come out victorious. More likely, at some point the nobles would retreat or surrender and the common folk would be routed and flee to avoid being massacred.
Even as late as WW1 soldiers would often be hesitant to kill their enemies because as it turns out killing other humans actually goes against our nature. Even in WW2 German soldiers and reserve police officers tasked with carrying out massacres had to rely on peer pressure and self-deception (i.e. trying to rationalize their actions as morally good[0]). It took us decades to refine the process of dehumanization that now allows modern soldiers to calmly wipe out dozens or hundreds of targets at the push of a button.
Also with trained professional soldiers in ancient times the cost of a single soldier would easily rival or even outclass the cost of their equipment. And on the occasion that common folk would have military-grade gear available to them it would more likely be a prized artifact passed down across generations.
[0]: There's one account of a German reserve police officer who participated in the massacres in Poland and specifically asked his comrades that he would kill the children but only after they would first kill their mothers because then he would be doing the children a favor because they could not go on living after seeing their mothers killed. Yes, it's twisted logic and ethically despicable but it served him to rationalize his cruel actions as a moral good and remain the hero of his own story. In fact, after the war many of them would be appalled at being considered war criminals rather that victims of injustice for having "had to" commit the massacres despite there being no formal or legal consequences to not participating. Those refusing to participate would be considered "traitors" by their comrades for "not sharing the burden" but not face any form of punishment.
The Homeric epics in my view are about transition. The bronze age stories of glory were a thing of the past, in sharp contrast with a world emerging from centuries of chaos. Literacy was emerging again, and with it these memories were being re-shaped for a brave new world of iron. Hence the contradictions and anachronisms.
How is Demotic Greek made up? I thought it's a name for common modern Greek.
I'm going to guess GP specifically meant katharevousa demotic Greek, or similar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharevousa
The standardised register has some Katharevousa features that perhaps aren’t very common in ordinary speech.
The "demotic Greek" in the translation I was taught (by Kazantzakis and
Kakridis) is a language made up by the translators and not the modern Greek
spoken by everdyay people, not even the translators' contemporaries. As far as
I understand it (you will struggle to find a clear discussion of this on the
English-speaking internet, and possibly not in the Greek-speaking one, also)
it is a language created for political reasons, from bits and pieces of the
speech of farmers in the countryside, but without being a specific local
dialect, just a patchwork of local dialects; it is the language that
proletarians would speak, at least in the confused imagination of the
translators. Incidentally, the same translators destroyed my attempt to read
Dante's Inferno, in high school, when I asked for a translation and was given
one of their own (or I think it was just Kakridis) in the same style.
Just to be clear, I grew up reading Katharevousa because my family was right-leaning and my father considered Katharevousa to be a "correct" Greek, closer to the ancient Greek. Which of the ancient Greek dialects, I never asked, but that was also a fake, made-up, politically-motivated langauge that nobody spoke in everyday life, and never will.
There are plenty of very silly people in Greece that carry around unrealistic ideas about what "proper Greek" means, for example I've seen folks use the polytonic system in internet posts, which uses accents inherited from Koine Greek meant to teach barbarians proper Gerek pronounciation... that we no longer use.
It's all a bit like the French Academy's attempt to control how French is spoken: a futile, misguided and ill-thought out attempt, entirely politically motivated, that will never work. Ηuman language is an expression of the freedom of the human spirit and no idiot can control it, try as they might.
Btw, this is the translation of the Iliad I was taught at school:
https://www.alfavita.gr/sites/default/files/attachments/omir...
And here's a short excerpt (my transcription, and [sic]'s)):
There was an older version by Iakovos Polylas, in katharevousa, or katharevousa-like demotic, not sure. I think the two books have been used interchangeably at differen times. Why? Why can't we have an ordinary, easy-to-read translation for school kids? Is it any wonder they prefer to watch One Piece and read Spider Μan than this incomprehensible nonsense?
Just to be clear, I grew up reading Katharevousa because my family was right-leaning and my father considered Katharevousa to be a "correct" Greek, closer to the ancient Greek. Which of the ancient Greek dialects, I never asked, but that was also a fake, made-up, politically-motivated langauge that nobody spoke in everyday life, and never will.
There are plenty of very silly people in Greece that carry around unrealistic ideas about what "proper Greek" means, for example I've seen folks use the polytonic system in internet posts, which uses accents inherited from Koine Greek meant to teach barbarians proper Gerek pronounciation... that we no longer use.
It's all a bit like the French Academy's attempt to control how French is spoken: a futile, misguided and ill-thought out attempt, entirely politically motivated, that will never work. Ηuman language is an expression of the freedom of the human spirit and no idiot can control it, try as they might.
Btw, this is the translation of the Iliad I was taught at school:
https://www.alfavita.gr/sites/default/files/attachments/omir...
And here's a short excerpt (my transcription, and [sic]'s)):
Του Δία και της Λητώς τους έσπρωξεν [sic] ο γιος που με το ρήγα [sic]
χολιάζοντας [sic] κακιά εξεσήκωσεν [sic] αρρώστια και πέθαιναν [sic]
στρατός πολύς' τι [sic] δε σεβάστηκεν [sic] ο γιος [sic[ του Ατρεά το Χρύση,
του θεού το λειτουργό· στ' Αργίτικα γοργά καράβια είχε έρθει
με λύτρα αρίφνητα [sic], την κόρη του να ξαγοράσει πίσω [sic],
του μακροσαγιτάρη [sic] Απόλλωνα κρατώντας τα στεφάνια
πα [sic] στο χρυσό ραβδί, και πρόσπεφτε μπρος στους Αγίτες όλους,
ξεχωριστά στους δυο πολέμαρχους υγιους [sic] του Ατρέα γυρνώντας"
There was an older version by Iakovos Polylas, in katharevousa, or katharevousa-like demotic, not sure. I think the two books have been used interchangeably at differen times. Why? Why can't we have an ordinary, easy-to-read translation for school kids? Is it any wonder they prefer to watch One Piece and read Spider Μan than this incomprehensible nonsense?
> I grew up in Greece and we were taught the Iliad and the Odyssey at school
I grew up in Texas and we covered the Illiad and Odyssey in High School.
I grew up in Texas and we covered the Illiad and Odyssey in High School.
I grew up in Germany and I don't remember any mention of mythologic literature outside things like "this, but the way, is when the Iliad is set". The optional religion classes of course were full of mythologic literature, but no Iliad there either (geographically it wasn't that far off).
There was a series of youth entertainment books that retold the stories, that were very widely read. Think Lord of the Rings, but kids would then talk of Achilles instead of Aragorn. Fallen out of favor I think, because the good/evil dichotomy, where it appeared, was almost as seeped in racist ideas as in LotR, just without being able to hide behind "yeah, this is middle earth, where wildly different hominid species just exist and look how good some of them can get along anyways"
There was a series of youth entertainment books that retold the stories, that were very widely read. Think Lord of the Rings, but kids would then talk of Achilles instead of Aragorn. Fallen out of favor I think, because the good/evil dichotomy, where it appeared, was almost as seeped in racist ideas as in LotR, just without being able to hide behind "yeah, this is middle earth, where wildly different hominid species just exist and look how good some of them can get along anyways"
Great to know. I watched a bunch of Western movies that were at least set in Teas when I was growing up.
> I decided that Achilles is a bloodthirsty assshole and fuck him and his μήνις
In the French translation I have, the translator mentions that "wrath" is used once or so in the book, only to describe Zeus's behavior.
I believe the key is to interpret the text in a theistic setting: it's not "rage" in the human sense: Agamemnon is going against Apollo by disrespecting his priest, Achilles helps Agamemnon to solve the issue, and instead of being thankful, Agamemnon punishes Achilles.
Achilles would have slayed him, but he didn't because Athena told him not to.
That's a key difference between Agamemnon and Achilles: the latter is much more respectful of the Gods than the other. In theistic societies, you don't pick heretical heroes.
Agamemnon is motivated by this blind human rage when he punishes Achilles. Achilles isn't.
I believe we could make similar comments regarding the act of killing back then: in a setting where people firmly believe in immortality of the soul, the moral rules are probably way different that in today's essentially atheistic setting.
In the French translation I have, the translator mentions that "wrath" is used once or so in the book, only to describe Zeus's behavior.
I believe the key is to interpret the text in a theistic setting: it's not "rage" in the human sense: Agamemnon is going against Apollo by disrespecting his priest, Achilles helps Agamemnon to solve the issue, and instead of being thankful, Agamemnon punishes Achilles.
Achilles would have slayed him, but he didn't because Athena told him not to.
That's a key difference between Agamemnon and Achilles: the latter is much more respectful of the Gods than the other. In theistic societies, you don't pick heretical heroes.
Agamemnon is motivated by this blind human rage when he punishes Achilles. Achilles isn't.
I believe we could make similar comments regarding the act of killing back then: in a setting where people firmly believe in immortality of the soul, the moral rules are probably way different that in today's essentially atheistic setting.
>> In the French translation I have, the translator mentions that "wrath" is used once or so in the book, only to describe Zeus's behavior.
It's the very first word of the very first verse:
It really is all about Achilles having a hissy fit, throwing a tantrum, stamping his little feet, chucking his toys out of the pram and holding his breath until he's blue in the face. The analysis of the translator in your book is over-engineered, I would say.
It's the very first word of the very first verse:
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος
[The rage] [sing] [goddess] [of Peleus' son] [Achilles]
It really is all about Achilles having a hissy fit, throwing a tantrum, stamping his little feet, chucking his toys out of the pram and holding his breath until he's blue in the face. The analysis of the translator in your book is over-engineered, I would say.
(I'm seeing this quite late, my bad).
Let me rephrase this: the observation is the translator's; the analysis is mine.
Why would anyone chose to celebrate so highly such a childish behavior? That's preposterous. People weren't stupid. Teaching people to show respect to virtuous people, I barely see how over-engineered of an interpretation this is: it's basic common sense.
Let me rephrase this: the observation is the translator's; the analysis is mine.
Why would anyone chose to celebrate so highly such a childish behavior? That's preposterous. People weren't stupid. Teaching people to show respect to virtuous people, I barely see how over-engineered of an interpretation this is: it's basic common sense.
Thanks for the clarification. You're quite right about the childish behaviour, yet I don't think it was celebrated, as such. I think the Illiad makes more sense in the context of the ancients' notion of hubris. I think they enjoyed the Illiad as a cautionary tale, of what happens when success goes to peoples' heads and they think they're invincible.
Many Greek myths and legends have similar themes: Icarus, Phaethon, Arachne, anyone who put on airs and defied the gods, or acted above their station.
Many Greek myths and legends have similar themes: Icarus, Phaethon, Arachne, anyone who put on airs and defied the gods, or acted above their station.
Exactly!
I believe those myths, like the Bible's and others, were used in part to teach people a few basic things, so as to ensure some amount of social stability, hence allowing societies to persist.
"Controlling the masses via fear and tall tales" is unfortunately too common of a caricature: we're probably making a sizable mistake by discarding them, and replacing them with whatever's trending on TikTok, or whoever's agendas.
For example, the definition of "courage" exemplified by Herakles's behavior has nothing to do with the "courage" of a man showing off his breast implants on TV: using the same word to qualify both behaviors is ill-suited (regardless of any opinions, positive or negative, on the latter case; I'm merely pointing that distinct words would be more appropriate to qualify fundamentally distinct behaviors) (it's a real example, but I won't be able to source it).
I believe those myths, like the Bible's and others, were used in part to teach people a few basic things, so as to ensure some amount of social stability, hence allowing societies to persist.
"Controlling the masses via fear and tall tales" is unfortunately too common of a caricature: we're probably making a sizable mistake by discarding them, and replacing them with whatever's trending on TikTok, or whoever's agendas.
For example, the definition of "courage" exemplified by Herakles's behavior has nothing to do with the "courage" of a man showing off his breast implants on TV: using the same word to qualify both behaviors is ill-suited (regardless of any opinions, positive or negative, on the latter case; I'm merely pointing that distinct words would be more appropriate to qualify fundamentally distinct behaviors) (it's a real example, but I won't be able to source it).
> I liked the Odyssey
You can get quite a few good bedtime stories out of it, if you tone down the gore so the kids don't get nightmares - Circe, Polyphemus, Aeolus, Scylla and Charybdis, the sirens, the Trojan horse ...
You can get quite a few good bedtime stories out of it, if you tone down the gore so the kids don't get nightmares - Circe, Polyphemus, Aeolus, Scylla and Charybdis, the sirens, the Trojan horse ...
> good bedtime stories
May I suggest this? https://garethhinds.com/wp/the-odyssey/
Excellent graphic novel adaptation. The gore is mostly a set of a dozen pages towards the end, when Odysseus kills the suitors, that can easily be skipped.
May I suggest this? https://garethhinds.com/wp/the-odyssey/
Excellent graphic novel adaptation. The gore is mostly a set of a dozen pages towards the end, when Odysseus kills the suitors, that can easily be skipped.
There's another graphic novel too.
https://bigheadpress.com/otr?page=1
There’s a picture book of Greek myths my dad would read to me from when I was a kid. It toned down the gore and rape stuff (it was still there just implied so a kid won’t get it), and made for great listening as a kid before bed.
20 years later I’m in grad school and I meet some classicists. It seems basically every one of them had that book as a kid. Maybe I missed my calling
20 years later I’m in grad school and I meet some classicists. It seems basically every one of them had that book as a kid. Maybe I missed my calling
> I have heard the opinion voiced that works like the Iliad are too daunting or too boring even for university students.
I grew up in India and we studied abridged versions of the Illiad and Odessy in high school. I have a hard time believing that people actually think these epics are boring.
I grew up in India and we studied abridged versions of the Illiad and Odessy in high school. I have a hard time believing that people actually think these epics are boring.
I am coincidentally reading the Iliad right now. Which of the warriors exactly weren't bloodthirsty assholes? Odysseus goes on a raid with Diomedes in book 10 and stands by while Diomedes kills a bunch of sleeping soldiers. They also murder a Trojan they easily could have taken hostage. And what about the part of the Odyssey when he comes home and murders the suitors until the goddess steps in?
The Iliad is particularly challenging when we project our current values back onto this ancient story. If we can suspend that, it contains timeless human questions, particularly on the role of fate and the forces that drive us. I feel that we lose the thread if we focus too much on whether the characters are likable.
Also, why are you so certain that the bards would have found the analysis boring? Truly great works can operate on multiple levels.
The Iliad is particularly challenging when we project our current values back onto this ancient story. If we can suspend that, it contains timeless human questions, particularly on the role of fate and the forces that drive us. I feel that we lose the thread if we focus too much on whether the characters are likable.
Also, why are you so certain that the bards would have found the analysis boring? Truly great works can operate on multiple levels.
The target audience was like that -- warriors. They like warrior things. Like detailed depictions of strikes and injuries.
The general public likes warrior things too. To think the iliad was 'written' ( or sung ) for warriors is naive and simplistic.
Would you change your opinion if I say that it's not my words, I just cited a professional archeologist?
From this myth-busting movie review (sorry not in English I should probably make a translation) at 17:45
https://youtu.be/f77h_-wFYGo
From this myth-busting movie review (sorry not in English I should probably make a translation) at 17:45
https://youtu.be/f77h_-wFYGo
Interesting take: Thats because at the time people had not developed consciousness yet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_...
I'm a bit confused, the quoted article says that the Iliad doesn't discuss mental activity, and that might be true since I haven't read it, but I have read Homer's Odyssey, which certainly does...
The book it's bit bullshit once you read about the Sumer or Chinese civilisations.
That's a strange offhand comment. The Mesopotamian civilizations are explicitly addressed by Jaynes, and China is at least mentioned, although not talked about. However, Shang dynasty China had many of the features that Jaynes' hypothesis would expect to see in a civilization when the bicameral mind is breaking down - in particular, lots and lots of augury.
What about Sumerian or Chinese history makes the book "bullshit" according to you?
What about Sumerian or Chinese history makes the book "bullshit" according to you?
I think this mostly hinges on whether you interpret Jaynes' argument of the origin of consciousness as being a cultural artifact or an evolutionary trait. We usually think of it as the latter and tying it to a certain recent point in history in the West suggests a perspective of people outside that sphere as "less human" based on how we usually think about consciousness.
I think Jaynes' actually seems to argue for consciousness as a cultural construct. While this makes sense in a way, it largely conflicts with how consciousness is commonly understood, especially in the context of moral, ethical or religious arguments.
I'm also not sure to what degree the "bicameral mind" would have been a universal experience. While self-talk is extremely understudied we now at least know that some people have inner dialogues (which we usually consider a form of hallucination or schizophrenia), most have inner monologues and some have no active inner voice whatsoever (if we ignore subvocalizations and only focus on internal "thought"). In religious contexts we still often treat ancient stories of people "hearing the gods" at face value even if it is no longer culturally acceptable to claim the same today (i.e. you'd rightfully be considered to be suffering from hallucinations). I'm unconvinced the examples Jaynes gives are more than just artifacts of cultures that treated hallucinations as a meaningful part of the human experience the same way some cultures (including people as recent as Freud and Jung) treat dreams as meaningful parts of the human experience or religious practice.
Also externalization of intrusive thoughts or emotions is actually part of therapeutical approaches to disorders like depression. Even meditation and mindfulness often involves viewing the inner mind as a detached observer. I'm not convinced attributing these uncontrolled experiences to an internal "id" (with full acknowledgement of the caveats that come with referring to Freud in the context of modern psychology) is much more sophisticated than attributing them to external "gods" or demons. So in a way the "bicameral mind" still seems to exist, except that we have changed our cultural narrative around it to one that favors the fiction of individual responsibility over the fiction of supernatural forces outside our control.
I think the only reason the book has been so influential is that people misread the argument as an evolutionary one rather than a cultural one and conflate Jaynes' meaning of the word "consciousness" with the popular and religious concepts of it. I also think this mistake is particularly appealing to those already looking for reasons to justify treating "Europeans" (i.e. white people) as biologically superior to others as it neatly fits into the colonial era racist idea of the "industrious Asians" only being intellectually superior by having a "hive mind" mentality and being individually empty and lacking original thought (and likewise Black people being too primitive for complex thought and thus stronger and more violent). I'm not saying Jaynes would agree with any of these ideas, I'm just saying people looking to justify these ideas (whether or not they're willing to openly state them in public) will happily misinterpret Jaynes' work to do so.
I think Jaynes' actually seems to argue for consciousness as a cultural construct. While this makes sense in a way, it largely conflicts with how consciousness is commonly understood, especially in the context of moral, ethical or religious arguments.
I'm also not sure to what degree the "bicameral mind" would have been a universal experience. While self-talk is extremely understudied we now at least know that some people have inner dialogues (which we usually consider a form of hallucination or schizophrenia), most have inner monologues and some have no active inner voice whatsoever (if we ignore subvocalizations and only focus on internal "thought"). In religious contexts we still often treat ancient stories of people "hearing the gods" at face value even if it is no longer culturally acceptable to claim the same today (i.e. you'd rightfully be considered to be suffering from hallucinations). I'm unconvinced the examples Jaynes gives are more than just artifacts of cultures that treated hallucinations as a meaningful part of the human experience the same way some cultures (including people as recent as Freud and Jung) treat dreams as meaningful parts of the human experience or religious practice.
Also externalization of intrusive thoughts or emotions is actually part of therapeutical approaches to disorders like depression. Even meditation and mindfulness often involves viewing the inner mind as a detached observer. I'm not convinced attributing these uncontrolled experiences to an internal "id" (with full acknowledgement of the caveats that come with referring to Freud in the context of modern psychology) is much more sophisticated than attributing them to external "gods" or demons. So in a way the "bicameral mind" still seems to exist, except that we have changed our cultural narrative around it to one that favors the fiction of individual responsibility over the fiction of supernatural forces outside our control.
I think the only reason the book has been so influential is that people misread the argument as an evolutionary one rather than a cultural one and conflate Jaynes' meaning of the word "consciousness" with the popular and religious concepts of it. I also think this mistake is particularly appealing to those already looking for reasons to justify treating "Europeans" (i.e. white people) as biologically superior to others as it neatly fits into the colonial era racist idea of the "industrious Asians" only being intellectually superior by having a "hive mind" mentality and being individually empty and lacking original thought (and likewise Black people being too primitive for complex thought and thus stronger and more violent). I'm not saying Jaynes would agree with any of these ideas, I'm just saying people looking to justify these ideas (whether or not they're willing to openly state them in public) will happily misinterpret Jaynes' work to do so.
Too bad your comment got buried so far down, I think it's a very interesting critique of the Jaynes fandom here on HN. Of course, the point that Jaynes's arguments are unconvincing because his examples could also be interpreted differently is hardly sophisticated, especially since not all of his examples from, say, the Illiad, even mention hallucinations explicitly (instead, Gods sometimes just suddenly disappear, leaving those who were following their commands confused - Jaynes argues this is exactly because the God had been a hallucination all along), and he spends some time on showing that the very concept of an internal mind-space didn't exist in early Greek civilization.
Your point on the Jaynes fandom is interesting, though. I'll make sure to keep the in mind the next time the topic comes up here.
Your point on the Jaynes fandom is interesting, though. I'll make sure to keep the in mind the next time the topic comes up here.
Asians and hive mind? I doub't it, Southern Europe has been making contact with the Japanese for centuries. Heck, we even have in Spain a town with people surnamed "Japón" for obvious reasons.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coria_del_R%C3%ADo
The Anglo-Saxon mindset it's really outdated then...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coria_del_R%C3%ADo
The Anglo-Saxon mindset it's really outdated then...
I didn't say Asians have a hive mind. It used to be a widespread racist stereotypes of Chinese, Japanese and other East Asian people. Luckily it seems to have fallen out of favor but it's hardly ancient.
You're accusing Odysseus of being a bloodthirsty asshole because he "stood by" while someone else killed a bunch of sleeping soldiers and because he, himself, killed the suitors who ganged up against him yelling "he's just one man, guys, let's get him" (liberally translated)? Clearly, we do not have the same definition of "bloodthirsty".
Which of the warriors were not bloodthirsty? Ajax, for example, was not bloodthirsty, who stood strong with his shield and without the help of the gods, a defensive bullwark for the Acheans. Hector, was not bloodthristy, who was just trying to defend his city and his people from the calamity brought on by his idiot brother who couldn't keep it in his pants. Aeneas was not bloodthirsty, who escaped the burning Troy to found Rome. Patroklus was not bloodthirsty but was just trying to save his friend's honour (by killing people, no doubt, but in the middle of a war).
Achilles killed Hector and dragged his dead body behind his chariot to desecrate it. He refused to hand it over to Priam, Hector's father, the king of Troy, when he, an old man, came begging on his knees in grief asking for Achilles to do the right thing by the gods. Achilles was an asshole. It is a disgrace that an entire epic poem was written for his "rage". Screw his rage.
Edit: remember also that Achilles was the only one of the Achean lords that didn't have to fight, because he hadn't taken the oath at Menelaus' and Helen's wedding (he was living as a girl at the time). He accepted the invitation to go to the war for glory- the glory of killing men. What a glory. Unlike the rest, he did not leave behind wife and children, and loyal dogs and slaves, because he had none to leave (though he did have a wife, I think). Not to mention: he was invulnerable (mostly) so he could cover himself in guts and glory without fear. Yeah, what a great hero.
Which of the warriors were not bloodthirsty? Ajax, for example, was not bloodthirsty, who stood strong with his shield and without the help of the gods, a defensive bullwark for the Acheans. Hector, was not bloodthristy, who was just trying to defend his city and his people from the calamity brought on by his idiot brother who couldn't keep it in his pants. Aeneas was not bloodthirsty, who escaped the burning Troy to found Rome. Patroklus was not bloodthirsty but was just trying to save his friend's honour (by killing people, no doubt, but in the middle of a war).
Achilles killed Hector and dragged his dead body behind his chariot to desecrate it. He refused to hand it over to Priam, Hector's father, the king of Troy, when he, an old man, came begging on his knees in grief asking for Achilles to do the right thing by the gods. Achilles was an asshole. It is a disgrace that an entire epic poem was written for his "rage". Screw his rage.
Edit: remember also that Achilles was the only one of the Achean lords that didn't have to fight, because he hadn't taken the oath at Menelaus' and Helen's wedding (he was living as a girl at the time). He accepted the invitation to go to the war for glory- the glory of killing men. What a glory. Unlike the rest, he did not leave behind wife and children, and loyal dogs and slaves, because he had none to leave (though he did have a wife, I think). Not to mention: he was invulnerable (mostly) so he could cover himself in guts and glory without fear. Yeah, what a great hero.
On Achilles, wasn’t he told he a god / oracle that he can choose between going and having his name remembered as a hero for all time at the cost of dying young or staying home, living a happy life, and nobody remembering him after he passed in old age?
Well I don't remember that. I remember the prhophecy given to Thetis, his mom, that he was going to be killed in battle, I believe- hence her dunking him in the Styx to become invulnerable.
There's a lot of mythology around the Iliad and you're probably right and I just don't remember it.
There's a lot of mythology around the Iliad and you're probably right and I just don't remember it.
You might enjoy “The Odyssey” by Symphony X.
This is awesome. I can't believe how much pedagogical material is put forward here. Incredible stuff.
All that being said, I think the larger concept is that one of the foundations of Western civ has found a way to be presented to Students and children of Eastern civ.
What about the other way around? I know that in university I had to specifically seek out Eastern civ courses qualified for my major. 20+ years later I find them perpetually a source of knowledge and inspiration when trying to understand modern geopolitics.
The Illiad, Beowolf, and other foundations of Western Civilization are no doubt important, but they are only part of the pantheon of modern global civilization for which classics like "Journey to the West" and the tales of the travels of Ibn Battuta are part of.
These stories have provided an important framework I have enjoyed when I'm trying to interpret what's happening in the world, and have helped me numerous times in building bridges with my fellow humans from across my planet.
Despite being a graduate of a world class Computer Science program, I am more proud that I know of the importance of Mansa Musa, Qin Shi Huang, Salah ad-Din, Shaka Zulu, and other global rulers were and the time spent considering the civilizations they came from.
I can only imagine being a Chinese teen, learning about the Iliad for the first time. It would be like learning who Hanuman and other legendary Eastern Asian heroes are. I wish that these legends were taught to Western students as mandatory. I had to learn "Foundations of Western Civ" in school, but I would have found "Foundations of Eastern Civ" just as enlightening.
All that being said, I think the larger concept is that one of the foundations of Western civ has found a way to be presented to Students and children of Eastern civ.
What about the other way around? I know that in university I had to specifically seek out Eastern civ courses qualified for my major. 20+ years later I find them perpetually a source of knowledge and inspiration when trying to understand modern geopolitics.
The Illiad, Beowolf, and other foundations of Western Civilization are no doubt important, but they are only part of the pantheon of modern global civilization for which classics like "Journey to the West" and the tales of the travels of Ibn Battuta are part of.
These stories have provided an important framework I have enjoyed when I'm trying to interpret what's happening in the world, and have helped me numerous times in building bridges with my fellow humans from across my planet.
Despite being a graduate of a world class Computer Science program, I am more proud that I know of the importance of Mansa Musa, Qin Shi Huang, Salah ad-Din, Shaka Zulu, and other global rulers were and the time spent considering the civilizations they came from.
I can only imagine being a Chinese teen, learning about the Iliad for the first time. It would be like learning who Hanuman and other legendary Eastern Asian heroes are. I wish that these legends were taught to Western students as mandatory. I had to learn "Foundations of Western Civ" in school, but I would have found "Foundations of Eastern Civ" just as enlightening.
I'd wager you will find far more Westerners who are familiar with (some of) the Eastern classics than the other way round. No idea how you would come to believe that the reverse is the case, or that correction is needed in that regard.
In fact, I suspect that more people in the West have read the Tao Te Ching or The Art of War than the Iliad, by quite a margin (if only because of the difference in length). The former two are certainly much more common to see in bookstores than the latter.
Also, I'm not sure whether Beowulf should be counted among the "foundations of Western Civilization". It's very rarely read outside the Anglosphere, and even there its importance is primarily linguistic.
In fact, I suspect that more people in the West have read the Tao Te Ching or The Art of War than the Iliad, by quite a margin (if only because of the difference in length). The former two are certainly much more common to see in bookstores than the latter.
Also, I'm not sure whether Beowulf should be counted among the "foundations of Western Civilization". It's very rarely read outside the Anglosphere, and even there its importance is primarily linguistic.
The Illiad predates the Tao Te Ching and The Art of War by a millennium. They are not peer works at all.
The peer of the Illiad from a different culture would be the Jewish sacred books. And both, together with Theogony, are derivative of traditions that stretch two more millennia to Enuma Anu Enlil and Gilgamesh.
The peer of the Illiad from a different culture would be the Jewish sacred books. And both, together with Theogony, are derivative of traditions that stretch two more millennia to Enuma Anu Enlil and Gilgamesh.
The copyright notice on the Iliad says it is “generally regarded as being composer around the 6th Century BCE, and is therefore in the public domain.”
So it’s around the same time as the art of war and Tao te Ching.
So it’s around the same time as the art of war and Tao te Ching.
Seems like I mistook the eastern classics for second century CE works for some reason. My bad. But you're not all the way right. This copyright notice you're reading is out of date. Scholars currently think Homeric texts are likely to be 9th-8th century BCE works. Anyway, that would make them all roughly contemporary, yes. Thanks for pointing that out.
> I'd wager you will find far more Westerners who are familiar with (some of) the Eastern classics than the other way round. No idea how you would come to believe that the reverse is the case, or that correction is needed in that regard.
>In fact, I suspect that more people in the West have read the Tao Te Ching or The Art of War than the Iliad, by quite a margin (if only because of the difference in length). The former two are certainly much more common to see in bookstores than the latter.
It would be interesting to find out. My East Asian POV is adopted from a Korean direction. My wife and all of her siblings studied Journey to the West, and a few Chinese classics, as well as the Greek epics and Beowulf in grade school.
My personal anecdote is that I had heard of the Confucian classics in history class, and seen the Art of War mentioned in mid-80s Western media as a "tips for business" fad. I had never heard of Journey to the West, or the Tao Te Ching or I Ching until I was well into adulthood in the late 90s.
> Also, I'm not sure whether Beowulf should be counted among the "foundations of Western Civilization". It's very rarely read outside the Anglosphere, and even there its importance is primarily linguistic.
I think many historians would disagree with you. It's cited as the first written work in an ancient English dialect and has been taught to billions of school children, and while in the dialect of the scribes who recorded it, it's well understood to represent northern Germanic people, places, and events, and captures a key historic period of the transitional period of Christianization of those people that predates many other records by hundreds of years, such as those produced by the court of Charlemagne.
Unless of course you don't think the Anglosphere or Germanic peoples have contributed anything to the formulation of Western Civilization and it's just a weird coincidence that it's assumed in most places in the world that when they see a Westerner, they assume they speak English on some level. Bah, no contribution of any kind.
It would be interesting to find out. My East Asian POV is adopted from a Korean direction. My wife and all of her siblings studied Journey to the West, and a few Chinese classics, as well as the Greek epics and Beowulf in grade school.
My personal anecdote is that I had heard of the Confucian classics in history class, and seen the Art of War mentioned in mid-80s Western media as a "tips for business" fad. I had never heard of Journey to the West, or the Tao Te Ching or I Ching until I was well into adulthood in the late 90s.
> Also, I'm not sure whether Beowulf should be counted among the "foundations of Western Civilization". It's very rarely read outside the Anglosphere, and even there its importance is primarily linguistic.
I think many historians would disagree with you. It's cited as the first written work in an ancient English dialect and has been taught to billions of school children, and while in the dialect of the scribes who recorded it, it's well understood to represent northern Germanic people, places, and events, and captures a key historic period of the transitional period of Christianization of those people that predates many other records by hundreds of years, such as those produced by the court of Charlemagne.
Unless of course you don't think the Anglosphere or Germanic peoples have contributed anything to the formulation of Western Civilization and it's just a weird coincidence that it's assumed in most places in the world that when they see a Westerner, they assume they speak English on some level. Bah, no contribution of any kind.
This. Beowulf has near nothing to do with the Western Civilization. The Anglosphere it's delusional, sorry. It's was all about either Greek or Roman legacy. Or maybe, Don Quixote, shaping up the Modern Western civilization by making fun on the old Medieval farts (Don Quixote) against the more pragmatical and non-brainwashed Enlightenment era common folk people (Sancho Panza).
Even Lazarillo from Tormes has a more caustic and Western shaping anti-epic than Beowulf, as it depicts a cynical and treacherous society where even the old literal blind outsmarts the rogue kid.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarillo_de_Tormes
Even Lazarillo from Tormes has a more caustic and Western shaping anti-epic than Beowulf, as it depicts a cynical and treacherous society where even the old literal blind outsmarts the rogue kid.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarillo_de_Tormes
Not the same as reading the source material but the youtube channel Overly Sarcastic Productions has great overviews/retellings of mythology/legends/ancient stories and they have a great ongoing series on Journey To The West and some decent one off eastern myths along with western stuff which they generally cover more. Especially since the source is in another language and a lot of it isn't super accessble to modern readers without being retold anyways I think it's great.
> I wish that these legends were taught to Western students as mandatory.
Agreed. Due to colonial history, the entirety of "Western Education" has a decidedly "European" slant. "Eastern Civilizations" are covered only as much as they are "Exotic". But in this current day and age History needs to taught in a truly "Global" manner.
Agreed. Due to colonial history, the entirety of "Western Education" has a decidedly "European" slant. "Eastern Civilizations" are covered only as much as they are "Exotic". But in this current day and age History needs to taught in a truly "Global" manner.
> Why, my Chinese students asked, will we read this? Because you need to prepare for American university classes, I replied. But more importantly: because this book might just change your life! I said this without apology or awkwardness. I believed it! Ultimately, if a great work of history and literature does not have the potential to change a student’s life, to shape their character or transform their worldview, there is no point in teaching it!
Love the boldness and clarity here. Whenever a classic movie is showing in the theaters that my wife has not seen, I tell her "we gotta watch this." It's not that I even enjoy or think of these movies as my favorites. It's that there is something in the movie that might stick with her and change her (and me).
Love the boldness and clarity here. Whenever a classic movie is showing in the theaters that my wife has not seen, I tell her "we gotta watch this." It's not that I even enjoy or think of these movies as my favorites. It's that there is something in the movie that might stick with her and change her (and me).
Does this not apply to any film?
Any movie (or generally any artistic creation) can change the audience. But Snakes on a Plane might not hit the same as say The Wages of Fear.
Wikis for those not familiar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wages_of_Fear https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_on_a_Plane
Wikis for those not familiar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wages_of_Fear https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_on_a_Plane
Snakes on Plane genuinely changed people’s lives more than Wages of Fear because it showed people the potential of making dumb jokes big. Wages of Fear was basically the same moralizing people get every day. Movies have a self referential quality that makes them more intellectually engaging than mere novels.
>Movies have a self referential quality that makes them more intellectually engaging than mere novels.
This was written by someone who hasn't seriously engaged in reading novels lol
Novels have been doing this sort of thing on a pretty deep level since basically their inception, and in more modern contexts no movie could replicate something like Pale Fire or Gravity's Rainbow for example. Self-referentiality is also a pretty boring trick after awhile, self-awareness and referentiality are very juvenile creative traits that often (not always) are seeking some sort of pat on the back for the mere act of referentiality itself.
These things should be starting points, not the focus of an entire work unless there's a broader point to be made. Fredric Jameson has written a great deal about this sort of thing, it's basically the default position of culture in a lot of ways now, there's nothing inherently exciting about it.
This isn't to say one medium is superior to the other or anything, I just find it to be a very weird critique of "mere" novels when self-referentiality goes way deeper there, the only things I can really think of that come close are 8 1/2 or maybe some of Charlie Kaufman's work like Adaptation.
This was written by someone who hasn't seriously engaged in reading novels lol
Novels have been doing this sort of thing on a pretty deep level since basically their inception, and in more modern contexts no movie could replicate something like Pale Fire or Gravity's Rainbow for example. Self-referentiality is also a pretty boring trick after awhile, self-awareness and referentiality are very juvenile creative traits that often (not always) are seeking some sort of pat on the back for the mere act of referentiality itself.
These things should be starting points, not the focus of an entire work unless there's a broader point to be made. Fredric Jameson has written a great deal about this sort of thing, it's basically the default position of culture in a lot of ways now, there's nothing inherently exciting about it.
This isn't to say one medium is superior to the other or anything, I just find it to be a very weird critique of "mere" novels when self-referentiality goes way deeper there, the only things I can really think of that come close are 8 1/2 or maybe some of Charlie Kaufman's work like Adaptation.
Tangentially, this is where the works of Dan Harmon (Community, Rick and Morty) fall down; his shows slide into self-referential, in-group pleasing messes.
Hard agree.
I think this also simultaneously highlights the genius of someone like Felini with 8 1/2, referentiality done right to actually get at deeper themes/characterization, not just for the sake of referentiality itself.
I think this also simultaneously highlights the genius of someone like Felini with 8 1/2, referentiality done right to actually get at deeper themes/characterization, not just for the sake of referentiality itself.
[deleted]
Snakes on a Plane is, allegorically, a retelling of The Odyssey. (Drugs recommended)
Wages of Fear now added to my "one of these days" list. Thank you!
In general you're better off reading the book when the film is just an adaptation, as the book can give more context, inner dialogue etc than a film can, simply due to the medium.
There are of course exceptions. Famously, Palahniuk has said the Fight Club film captured his intent better than his novel did. I also think film of The English Patient, which covers only a tiny section of what I consider a forgettable novel, is quite good, but even if you disagree I think almost anyone would say the film is better. And of course plenty of films aren't novel adaptations.
Regardless, if you're looking for a "story that could change my life" you're likely to get much more from the text than the adaptation. The strengths and weaknesses of the two media are just too different.
There are of course exceptions. Famously, Palahniuk has said the Fight Club film captured his intent better than his novel did. I also think film of The English Patient, which covers only a tiny section of what I consider a forgettable novel, is quite good, but even if you disagree I think almost anyone would say the film is better. And of course plenty of films aren't novel adaptations.
Regardless, if you're looking for a "story that could change my life" you're likely to get much more from the text than the adaptation. The strengths and weaknesses of the two media are just too different.
My limited understanding is that Palahniuk's book was a kind of fuck you to the publishing establishment (and in that vein, I highly recommend American Fiction).
Fight Club is one of my favorite movies of all time (although I could do with less onscreen fighting). It was (to me) part of a cosmic trilogy of movies ending the millennium:
Fight Club is one of my favorite movies of all time (although I could do with less onscreen fighting). It was (to me) part of a cosmic trilogy of movies ending the millennium:
* Fight Club
* American Beauty
* The Matrix
Sorcerer (1977) directed by William Friedkin (known for The Exorcist and The French Connection) is adapted from the same novel and is also great.
The Exorcist is the worst film I have ever seen, bar none. I was not surprised to find out it was hopelessly behind schedule and over budget. I was surprised to learn it was (still is) incredibly popular.
I saw Sorcerer on the big screen a month ago in Philly. Amazing. Made me wonder what I’ve been watching for the last 20 years.
These two films are completely dissimilar in their ambitions and the distinction between them has nothing to do with the merits of “a classic”
Snakes on the plane is a classic and I will fight anyone who says otherwise!
Look at Mr. Movie Critic here - next you'll tell me there's no moral lesson in Pulp Fiction?
Hah, true story, I had a college history professor who went on a screed about Pulp Fiction and how it was nihilistic and obscene and that Tarantino would make the world a better place by just offing himself. He said he believed the film and other films in a similar vein made the world a worse place and had literally negative value as a literary work.
It was a wild semester.
It was a wild semester.
And yet: he gave you a differing opinion from the general consensus, and now, however long ago it was, you still think about it. I don't know if this was the professor's intention, but he made you think about the movie more, he made you think either "He has a point because of x, y and z" or "I think he is wrong because of x, y and z", which is a valuable lesson.
One issue with modern films is that people seem to follow or look for the general opinion of them. Lord of the Rings? Good. Morbius? Bad but memeable. Tarantino? Best films ever if you're also into feet. Etc. There doesn't seem to be enough space for a differing opinion or a honest conversation about e.g. films.
One issue with modern films is that people seem to follow or look for the general opinion of them. Lord of the Rings? Good. Morbius? Bad but memeable. Tarantino? Best films ever if you're also into feet. Etc. There doesn't seem to be enough space for a differing opinion or a honest conversation about e.g. films.
It's funny until you remember that the class cost $2,000
Pulp Fiction is nihilistic tho. I like that, nihilism can be fun to watch. But nihilistic it is.
[deleted]
I can’t see nihilism and a Hollywood movie in the same sentence without thinking of the Big Lebowski. Those German guys were the real nihilists! :)
I agree, Tarantino sucks and Pulp Fiction is shlock.
It’s but a great first aid tutorial!
[deleted]
The day after watching The Last Jedi in theaters people asked me and my wife how we liked it. There was an awkward pause as both of us simultaneously realized that we barely remembered anything from the movie—the only response we could give was that it was forgettable.
So, if "it's weird that I didn't remember it at all one day later" counts as something that sticks with me and changes me, then yeah, I guess so?
So, if "it's weird that I didn't remember it at all one day later" counts as something that sticks with me and changes me, then yeah, I guess so?
Nice observation. kind of off-topic for an article on literature, but I've been trying to put my finger on what's been so wrong with movies and TV lately, and I think you've nailed it: It's that there really aren't many that are memorable anymore. I've watched a bunch of new movies in the last few years, and more and more often, I sit there an hour later and think "I can't remember anything all that interesting happening in the movie." I mean, there was action and conflict, protagonists and antagonists, and I can tell you the movie's genre and describe a few of the characters. But the dialog was bland and mumbly, the cinematography was all gray and washed out, the setting was kind of standard for that sort of movie, there were no interesting character arcs or twists, and it all kind of played out exactly as you'd expect a movie like that to play out.
Willing to consider that maybe it's just old age and cognitive decline, but I feel something is just off about a lot of recent movies.
Willing to consider that maybe it's just old age and cognitive decline, but I feel something is just off about a lot of recent movies.
I dunno. Everything, Everywhere, All At Once was widely praised, and I saw it twice in theaters; and while I can remember a few key moments, I couldn't tell you the full plot from beginning to end. I still feel like I took something away from the experience of watching it (particularly the second time, with my mother). I'm beginning to think that there is an overemphasis on the breaking-down, atomizing, and overanalysis of fictional works. There's a place for that, of course, and such endeavors can bring you great insight. But maybe a work is an experience unto itself. You can take away something useful and meaningful from just being there and engaging with it as a viewer and reader as it streams through your sensory experience, and sitting with the emotions it brings afterwards. If that aspect of it didn't matter - wasn't of principal importance, even - wouldn't you be better off just saving time by reading Cliff's Notes/watching CinemaSins/a Youtube Essay, where the Important Parts are chopped up and fed to you in a most palatable manner?
In 2022, it seemed like every Asian American raved about how good the movie is, just like when Crazy Rich Asians came out in 2018. I believe I'm in the target demographic for Everything Everywhere All at Once.
I fell asleep halfway through the movie and I tried my best to stay awake, even after my friends woke me up. The most interesting parts of the movie existed in the real-world plot but the movie kept running away from it. Even then, all universes (real-world included) had cringe-worthy levels of cliché metanarrative. It was a chore to make it to the end.
It's even worse that any criticism of the movie was actively shut down and nothing negative about it could be found online. If you did find a shred of criticism, viewers either accused you of ignorance, unappreciative of art, or racism.
I liked the actors playing the parents. I thought Stephanie Hsu and Ke Huy Quan were good in the real-life scenes.
I fell asleep halfway through the movie and I tried my best to stay awake, even after my friends woke me up. The most interesting parts of the movie existed in the real-world plot but the movie kept running away from it. Even then, all universes (real-world included) had cringe-worthy levels of cliché metanarrative. It was a chore to make it to the end.
It's even worse that any criticism of the movie was actively shut down and nothing negative about it could be found online. If you did find a shred of criticism, viewers either accused you of ignorance, unappreciative of art, or racism.
I liked the actors playing the parents. I thought Stephanie Hsu and Ke Huy Quan were good in the real-life scenes.
> If you did find a shred of criticism, viewers either accused you of ignorance, unappreciative of art, or racism.
To be fair, the first 2 out of those 3 things are the coming go-to accusations when it comes to making a “you didn’t like this and this is why you are wrong” point. For any kind of media.
The last one is situational, and depending on the movie could be swapped with something else. So I wouldn’t worry much about those accusations.
With that said, I haven’t watched Everything Everywhere All at Once myself yet (it is on my “very soon” list), but all of my friends (who all have very different tastes in movies) ended up liking it. So I am a bit optimistic about this one.
To be fair, the first 2 out of those 3 things are the coming go-to accusations when it comes to making a “you didn’t like this and this is why you are wrong” point. For any kind of media.
The last one is situational, and depending on the movie could be swapped with something else. So I wouldn’t worry much about those accusations.
With that said, I haven’t watched Everything Everywhere All at Once myself yet (it is on my “very soon” list), but all of my friends (who all have very different tastes in movies) ended up liking it. So I am a bit optimistic about this one.
Asian American movies are so rare that even a moderately interesting one get a lot of excitement.
[deleted]
Which is a sad commentary on Asian Americans. There’s multiple, massive movie industries in Asia, which are dependent on non-Asians for nothing. You can go your whole life watching nothing but Indian, Chinese, Japanese, or Korean content.
Films from India, China, Japan, and Korea have almost nothing to do with "Asian AMERICANS". We don't generally consider films from Germany, Italy, France, Sweden, etc to have anything to do with "white Americans".
That said, movies are made by (a) people with the chutzpah to make them and (b) funding. You'd think if Asian American's want more movies about Asian American issues and/or staring Asian Americans, they have enough connections to get the funding to do it. No need to wait for permission from any other groups. Just do it!
That said, movies are made by (a) people with the chutzpah to make them and (b) funding. You'd think if Asian American's want more movies about Asian American issues and/or staring Asian Americans, they have enough connections to get the funding to do it. No need to wait for permission from any other groups. Just do it!
> Films from India, China, Japan, and Korea have almost nothing to do with "Asian AMERICANS". We don't generally consider films from Germany, Italy, France, Sweden, etc to have anything to do with "white Americans".
If an “Asian” American can’t relate to content from Asia, then they’re just a generic American. Which is fine. But then they should just watch other generic American content. It’s not like Swedish Americans are sitting around demanding more movies with Stellan Skarsgård.
If an “Asian” American can’t relate to content from Asia, then they’re just a generic American. Which is fine. But then they should just watch other generic American content. It’s not like Swedish Americans are sitting around demanding more movies with Stellan Skarsgård.
Here’s a new way of thinking about it. “Asian American films” are generic American films. Some generic American films are about Italian-American crime families in New York, some are about Indigenous teenagers in Oklahoma, some are about detectives in Minneapolis. And some are about Chinese-American immigrants in Los Angeles county.
Generic American film audiences often get excited about films that tell stories they can easily identify with or that speak to their own life experiences, especially if those films are relatively rare.
Generic American film audiences often get excited about films that tell stories they can easily identify with or that speak to their own life experiences, especially if those films are relatively rare.
In your ignorance, you accidentally captured the scenario that American Born “Asians” find themselves in. As second or third generation Americans, they aren’t quite homogenized enough to be Americans. Bonus points for racist attitudes. But as not born in China/India/etc, they are obviously soft decadent Americans.
It’s like saying the Godfather isn’t valid art because Fellini made movies in Italy. Different world.
The other obvious issue with respect to the PRC in particular is that you cannot export content that violates certain standards in China. Hollywood self-censors to keep the market broad. Other entities such as the NBA do as well.
It’s like saying the Godfather isn’t valid art because Fellini made movies in Italy. Different world.
The other obvious issue with respect to the PRC in particular is that you cannot export content that violates certain standards in China. Hollywood self-censors to keep the market broad. Other entities such as the NBA do as well.
> As second or third generation Americans, they aren’t quite homogenized enough to be Americans.
They are as homogenized as they choose to be. I enjoy M. Night Shyamalan‘s cameos, where there will be a random brown guy in a town full of white people and nobody will comment on it. Because that’s what life is like as an Asian in America 99% of the time.
> But as not born in China/India/etc, they are obviously soft decadent Americans.
But they are though. Which is why “Asian” American content is usually so awful to watch as an immigrant. So often it’s about rejecting Asian culture and values in favor of European ones, while complaining about people sometimes making fun of your school lunch or noticing that you look like your parents didn’t fight in the American Revolution. (I’m looking at you Mindy Kaling.)
> It’s like saying the Godfather isn’t valid art because Fellini made movies in Italy.
I’ve never met an Italian American that purports to have some special affinity for The Godfather. They don’t care whether Coppola was Italian nor do they care Brando wasn’t the least bit Italian. It would be silly for a second or third generation Italian American to hold out the distinctiveness of their identity the way you see similarly assimilated Asian Americans do.
They are as homogenized as they choose to be. I enjoy M. Night Shyamalan‘s cameos, where there will be a random brown guy in a town full of white people and nobody will comment on it. Because that’s what life is like as an Asian in America 99% of the time.
> But as not born in China/India/etc, they are obviously soft decadent Americans.
But they are though. Which is why “Asian” American content is usually so awful to watch as an immigrant. So often it’s about rejecting Asian culture and values in favor of European ones, while complaining about people sometimes making fun of your school lunch or noticing that you look like your parents didn’t fight in the American Revolution. (I’m looking at you Mindy Kaling.)
> It’s like saying the Godfather isn’t valid art because Fellini made movies in Italy.
I’ve never met an Italian American that purports to have some special affinity for The Godfather. They don’t care whether Coppola was Italian nor do they care Brando wasn’t the least bit Italian. It would be silly for a second or third generation Italian American to hold out the distinctiveness of their identity the way you see similarly assimilated Asian Americans do.
This is making a sweeping assumption that Americans are a homogenised society, which they are anything but given it's mostly composed of Nth generation immigrants.
I agree, it is a sad commentary on Asian Americans. I have had the same opinion for years, so I'm glad to see someone else write it. Aggrandized uncritical positive reception and raving about the newest Asian American movie reeks of media representation desperation.
Pan-Asianism is a very weird phenomenon to me that seems common in the USA outside of California (very popular in Midwest and East Coast). Asian Americans have an "Asian American identity" that, while I understand why it exists due to how average Americans treat Asian Americans, I find very odd because it conflates a huge range and their happiness basically hinges on what white Americans think. Part of donning this "Asian American" identity reduces the ability to appreciate massive, wholly-contained independent Asian film industries.
I enjoy watching Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean films, but so far, when I watch an "Asian American" film, I end up rolling my eyes hard. Films centering around "Asian American"-specific issues are not fun to watch. They feel cringy because they exhaust their main points within minutes on-screen.
I'm glad pan-Asianism isn't as big in the Bay Area simply because coalescence isn't as necessary when respective Asian populations become sufficiently large.
Pan-Asianism is a very weird phenomenon to me that seems common in the USA outside of California (very popular in Midwest and East Coast). Asian Americans have an "Asian American identity" that, while I understand why it exists due to how average Americans treat Asian Americans, I find very odd because it conflates a huge range and their happiness basically hinges on what white Americans think. Part of donning this "Asian American" identity reduces the ability to appreciate massive, wholly-contained independent Asian film industries.
I enjoy watching Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean films, but so far, when I watch an "Asian American" film, I end up rolling my eyes hard. Films centering around "Asian American"-specific issues are not fun to watch. They feel cringy because they exhaust their main points within minutes on-screen.
I'm glad pan-Asianism isn't as big in the Bay Area simply because coalescence isn't as necessary when respective Asian populations become sufficiently large.
Seems an unpopular opinion but I thought EEAAO was pretty daft and I'm surprised at the reception it received and all the Oscars it won.
Now don't get me wrong, it's a fun flick and I'm genuinely glad for the three actors that won an Oscar (bless 'em), but it seemed like fan service from a waning institution trying to generate goodwill more than cinematic mastery from anyone involved.
The film is slightly better than a super bowl Pepsi commercial. There was nothing in this film that was any better than recent Marvel films, and none of them deserve awards for basic stories, basic dialogue and a lot of flashing lights and "multiverse".
We all love googly eyes, but that's not enough to carry a film.
Now don't get me wrong, it's a fun flick and I'm genuinely glad for the three actors that won an Oscar (bless 'em), but it seemed like fan service from a waning institution trying to generate goodwill more than cinematic mastery from anyone involved.
The film is slightly better than a super bowl Pepsi commercial. There was nothing in this film that was any better than recent Marvel films, and none of them deserve awards for basic stories, basic dialogue and a lot of flashing lights and "multiverse".
We all love googly eyes, but that's not enough to carry a film.
Agreed, EEAAO feels like a movie written by a 22 year old after they watched The Matrix and read some Camus, and somehow made each influence more derivative.
EEAAO is a gish-gallop of sensory overload, but it made me think about films, the meta-narrative behind it, etc.
It delivered what it advertised in the title. You have to evaluate a film in context of what it was trying to do
I most certainly do not, if it’s bad it’s bad. If a movie tries to do something stupid and succeeds, it has just succeeded at doing something stupid. Being successfully stupid is not something to be proud of or celebrated.
There's been a tremendous amount of media produced in the decades since recording film became simple. While the amount of trash produced may have changed one way or the other, the trash gets forgotten. It's easy to look back on a time where an iconic series was produced, say MASH, but forget Mobile One was of the same era.
I find the same to be true regardless of topic, the cars or tools of decades past that have survived often have great reputations, because they were built to survive. Those that weren't, have been forgotten.
I find the same to be true regardless of topic, the cars or tools of decades past that have survived often have great reputations, because they were built to survive. Those that weren't, have been forgotten.
One would think we would know how to consistently produce good stories that people would remember.
I think we do, but we also know how to fill air-time cheaply and show advertisements.
who watches advertisements? its the present year you know...
Not watching them doesn't mean they don't exist, or that nobody watches them.
Most media is forgettable and always has been. If anything has changed it's that we're consuming more of it, and it takes more for any given thing to stand out enough for it be something special, while more of what we consume isn't the peak of whats on offer.
There's also less shared context. E.g. I firmly believe that a lot of our memories of a lot of the media we've consumed in the past is down to conversations about it reinforcing it as much as the initial memory.
There's also less shared context. E.g. I firmly believe that a lot of our memories of a lot of the media we've consumed in the past is down to conversations about it reinforcing it as much as the initial memory.
I remember every line from Lord of the Rings now because so many memes were made of it.
But then you have e.g. Avatar where at best you remember "I see you" and... nothing else, besides high level things like blue aliens and jungles, because there's no memes. That was the weird thing about Avatar, one of the highest grossing films of all time, but nobody talks about it.
But then you have e.g. Avatar where at best you remember "I see you" and... nothing else, besides high level things like blue aliens and jungles, because there's no memes. That was the weird thing about Avatar, one of the highest grossing films of all time, but nobody talks about it.
The mainstream trash of today is just as forgettable as the mainstream trash of yesterday.
I share your experience and would like to make an unsolicited recommendation of a recent movie that's stuck with me more than anything else I've seen in the last few years: First Reformed. Give it a shot!
When people ask me about The Rise of Skywalker I tell them it was fucking awesome. It had:
- mecha-zombie palpatine
- a daft-punk sniper lady
- a crazy sith-goth-senate
- lightsaber fight on some craggy rocks in the water
- a big bad spaceship (I think)
All you need to really appreciate the genius of the film is to day-drink 2/3 a bottle of single malt then nurse a double of black label during the movie to keep the buzz going.
- mecha-zombie palpatine
- a daft-punk sniper lady
- a crazy sith-goth-senate
- lightsaber fight on some craggy rocks in the water
- a big bad spaceship (I think)
All you need to really appreciate the genius of the film is to day-drink 2/3 a bottle of single malt then nurse a double of black label during the movie to keep the buzz going.
> All you need to really appreciate the genius of the film is to day-drink 2/3 a bottle of single malt
Yeah, but people often don't remember or aren't moved by classics as well. The response is usually to lament their lack of attention span, or tell them that they didn't get it.
It ends up becoming an example of The Emperor's New clothes, where it's been decided ahead of time that if a layman disagrees, it's merely a sign of ignorance.
It ends up becoming an example of The Emperor's New clothes, where it's been decided ahead of time that if a layman disagrees, it's merely a sign of ignorance.
I think it's that people often aren't presented classics in the right context. I LOVED Moby Dick, but it's because I played Dishonored and wanted more of the whaling theme.
But if I had to read it for school? I would have hated it.
But if I had to read it for school? I would have hated it.
A lot of very good books are ruined by throwing them at kids who aren't in the same mindset that the author is targeting. Meanwhile great literature for children gets ignored because adults don't respect it.
Just as common in my experience is the layman deciding ahead of time that some classic “isn’t for them”.
I actually think if someone has a deep understanding of a classic, they have a good idea who would enjoy it and who wouldn't. For just about everything else, we accept that different people have different tastes, and just because something can be great to one group of people doesn't mean that it's going to be great for another. I can guess which people I know would like a movie like Jaws, and which wouldn't.
If you really understand a piece of media, understand what the author is trying to accomplish, what choices are being made narratively and stylistically, what narrative tradition the author is consciously or unconsciously following, etc., then you should have a pretty good idea of who this work would appeal to and who it wouldn't appeal to.
If someone comes away from a classic with the mindset "everyone should like this if they're smart enough/presented with it in the right way", it suggests they have a very shallow understanding of the classic.
If you really understand a piece of media, understand what the author is trying to accomplish, what choices are being made narratively and stylistically, what narrative tradition the author is consciously or unconsciously following, etc., then you should have a pretty good idea of who this work would appeal to and who it wouldn't appeal to.
If someone comes away from a classic with the mindset "everyone should like this if they're smart enough/presented with it in the right way", it suggests they have a very shallow understanding of the classic.
Everyone has their own blinders. And not every movie is for everyone.
Shouldn't really expect that a movie (or a book, or a scroll) from 50 years ago or 5000 miles away is speaking to the modern local audience. The world is diverse and it changes.
Shouldn't really expect that a movie (or a book, or a scroll) from 50 years ago or 5000 miles away is speaking to the modern local audience. The world is diverse and it changes.
The main thing I remember from the Iliad is how boring the listing of the ships was.
And meanwhile my wife and I have three Iliad translations on our shelf, which come down regularly as part of everyday conversation. If you last read it as a teenager it would be worth trying again—Emily Wilson's is very accessible!
Thanks for the recommendation. I've been wanting to read the Iliad for awhile, but always wondered which translation might be approachable.
If you're trying to reconstruct the Mycenaean Greek world from very paltry contemporary sources it's fascinating.
The Bible is the source materials for some of the greatest movies and shows in history, but also has some boring listings of people's ancestors.
The Bible itself it's a rehash on older folk tales and myths.
wtf is a begat
I liked the underground hall of mirrors, and kylo ren struggling to live up to darth vader's legacy.
Consider yourself lucky. The Star Wars movie for folks that hate it. When the preferred agenda finally landed on me I got angry.
I was a giant Star Wars fan as a kid—watched them on vhs so many times I could re-play the trilogy in my head, every line, every cut, every musical cue; games, comics, way too many novels (seriously, in hindsight any is too many, even the “good” ones were bad—yes, even those). Toys. That crappy CCG. All of it.
Lapsed after AOTC, but, still, quite a fan. I definitely don’t hate Star Wars.
I’d rank The Last Jedi as the 3rd best Star Wars movie and my 4th favorite. I was very surprised at the Internet reaction to it—came out of the theater like “oh wow, that was kinda almost good, people will be so happy!” LOL.
Lapsed after AOTC, but, still, quite a fan. I definitely don’t hate Star Wars.
I’d rank The Last Jedi as the 3rd best Star Wars movie and my 4th favorite. I was very surprised at the Internet reaction to it—came out of the theater like “oh wow, that was kinda almost good, people will be so happy!” LOL.
You may have appreciated an attempt at something different, as I might have, but it didn’t land.
Luke was an “older brother” to me; seeing him changed from the epitome of hope to a milk-drinking murderer was repugnant—a betrayal. Not just bad but insulting too. The “Yoda” impersonator insults the Jedi books. Hamill said as much before he was shut up.
I agreed with vito for the most part: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5ECwhB21Pnk
Luke was an “older brother” to me; seeing him changed from the epitome of hope to a milk-drinking murderer was repugnant—a betrayal. Not just bad but insulting too. The “Yoda” impersonator insults the Jedi books. Hamill said as much before he was shut up.
I agreed with vito for the most part: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5ECwhB21Pnk
I can't judge the sequels, I don't like them very well myself. But, 20 years ago the prequels came out, and at the time people were like "wtf is this?"
But now, 20 years later the movies are still very much in people's minds, they get memed, their actors make (re)appearances in contemporary Star Wars related productions etc. So they must've done something right?
But now, 20 years later the movies are still very much in people's minds, they get memed, their actors make (re)appearances in contemporary Star Wars related productions etc. So they must've done something right?
Original trilogy was not Shakespeare either but a lot of fun.
The prequels were simply bad, but not insulting like the sequels. They’re adjacent to the top three franchise of history so many people saw them. Memes tend to make fun of them, from memory.
The prequels were simply bad, but not insulting like the sequels. They’re adjacent to the top three franchise of history so many people saw them. Memes tend to make fun of them, from memory.
I think the mistake is that after the original trilogy most fans just seem to want "more of the same" because they don't see the original trilogy as three separate films but rather "a thing". Spoilers from here on out.
The Last Jedi made perfect sense for what it was meant to be in the context of its trilogy. Yes, it had many faults but that is hardly a new thing for a Star Wars movie (except enough time has passed since the prequels that the kind of people complaining TLJ was "too woke" are more than likely to find reasons to argue that the prequels were actually great because they're comfortable handwaving their many weaknesses).
Most fans expected "another Star Wars adventure" following the common formula seen in so much Star Wars media: a chosen one finding their hidden power and overcoming obstacles to come out on top at the end with maybe a hint at a greater evil to be defeated the next time around. But that's not the story of a second movie in a Star Wars trilogy, that's the story of any episode in an episodic TV show. Trilogies have narrative arcs. And the second movie in a Star Wars trilogy is where The Empire Strikes Back, the mentor dies to give way to the underprepared hero, evil triumphs and all hope seems lost.
The movie did that. Luke Skywalker stalled the big bad long enough to give the unprepared Rey a chance to escape as he sacrificed himself the same way Obi Wan stalled Vader before allowing himself to be struck down. The rebels were decimated and forced to flee and regroup. All of this was very much beat-by-beat what The Empire Strikes Back did before.
But it was also a new movie in a new trilogy and it had to carry the universe forward rather than merely rehash what had been done before. The first trilogy had given many the idea that Jedi powers were entirely tied to bloodline, like a royal claim to the throne. The second had expanded on this with literal blood tests for Jedi powers, showing the Jedi to take kids with the right blood results out of their families to raise them under their watch and then demonstrating the futility and pointlessness of this approach as Anakin single-handedly murders all the younglings and wipes out most of the Jedis. It also showed the Jedi system as being contradictory and too obsessed with regulations while being not only incapable to defend its own but also mostly disinterested in preventing the rise of the Empire by eschewing politics.
The third trilogy allowed a fresh take on the Jedis: Luke's attempt to recreate the system that had allowed his father to become Darth Vader failed again by bringing forth Kylo Ren, his own fear of failure ruining any chance to save Kylo Ren from turning to the Dark Side. Meanwhile Rey, like Anakin a complete nobody with no noteworthy lineage, turned out to be uniquely talented with the force, punching above her weight even when confronted with the "classically trained" (but lacking serious guidance now completely undisciplined) Kylo Ren at least long enough to survive the outmatched encounter in the first movie.
The second movie of the new trilogy did what had to be done: Luke realizes the folly of trying to adhere strictly to the sacred texts and destroys them. Yes, this was not strictly necessary but the act was primarily symbolic as we hadn't directly seen much of them before: as Luke had to learn and Yoda tried to teach him before, being a Jedi was not about learning from books and only doing the right thing but about failure and confronting your fears and weaknesses not to simply defeat them but to learn from them. This is why Anakin fell for the dark side and why Luke failed to save Kylo Ren: rather than learn to acknowledge his fear and to see failure as an opportunity for growth, the fear had corrupted them. This is also why the ending scene with random kids using the force mattered: yes, it was very much on the nose but the point was that the force does not spring from the Jedi's sacred texts, the force comes from within and becoming a Jedi means growing as a person, not just getting better at using the force.
But that would have meant allowing Star Wars to evolve and that's not what many fans wanted, especially not when they were so deeply afraid of "politics" entering their allegory for a communist rebellion defeating the overwhelming American empire - err, sorry, I meant very serious apolitical sci-fi franchise. After all, they were already being forced into uncomfortable conversations about rooting for the genocidal ethnostate (not an ethnostate! they stopped using clones some time in the original trilogy but also it's woke identity politics that the storm trooper defector had to be played by a Black guy) wearing the sci-fi equivalent of Waffen-SS uniforms (there we go again calling everyone you don't like a nazi).
If you paid attention, the original trilogy was always more about the triumph of compassion over brute force and of friendship overcoming what a lone individual can not. Luke being potentially the most powerful force user would have meant nothing if he wouldn't have had Uncle Ben and Yoda helping him master his potential, his friends give him the emotional strength to continue and the rebels (and Ewoks) give him the opportunity to challenge Vader - and then Anakin's suffocated love for his own child winning against the Emperor's conditioning and allowing him to save Luke and defeat the Emperor.
And then Skywalker came out and threw all of that away in order to give us more slop and even bring back the Emperor so we could have a big fight scene with Kylo Ren randomly deciding to switch sides. Even if you disliked TLJ for the blue-haired girlboss blueballing our fighter hero or the Asian chick getting too much screentime or Luke being a pacifist or the gambling planet being a socialist soapbox or whatever complaint about politics you want to level at it, I challenge you to defend Rise of the Skywalker as a dignified Star Wars sequel rather than a hurriedly strewn together fan service shlock fest that completely flies in the face of both the trilogy and the larger narrative and thematic arcs altogether.
Sorry for ranting. I'll now step off my soap box again.
The Last Jedi made perfect sense for what it was meant to be in the context of its trilogy. Yes, it had many faults but that is hardly a new thing for a Star Wars movie (except enough time has passed since the prequels that the kind of people complaining TLJ was "too woke" are more than likely to find reasons to argue that the prequels were actually great because they're comfortable handwaving their many weaknesses).
Most fans expected "another Star Wars adventure" following the common formula seen in so much Star Wars media: a chosen one finding their hidden power and overcoming obstacles to come out on top at the end with maybe a hint at a greater evil to be defeated the next time around. But that's not the story of a second movie in a Star Wars trilogy, that's the story of any episode in an episodic TV show. Trilogies have narrative arcs. And the second movie in a Star Wars trilogy is where The Empire Strikes Back, the mentor dies to give way to the underprepared hero, evil triumphs and all hope seems lost.
The movie did that. Luke Skywalker stalled the big bad long enough to give the unprepared Rey a chance to escape as he sacrificed himself the same way Obi Wan stalled Vader before allowing himself to be struck down. The rebels were decimated and forced to flee and regroup. All of this was very much beat-by-beat what The Empire Strikes Back did before.
But it was also a new movie in a new trilogy and it had to carry the universe forward rather than merely rehash what had been done before. The first trilogy had given many the idea that Jedi powers were entirely tied to bloodline, like a royal claim to the throne. The second had expanded on this with literal blood tests for Jedi powers, showing the Jedi to take kids with the right blood results out of their families to raise them under their watch and then demonstrating the futility and pointlessness of this approach as Anakin single-handedly murders all the younglings and wipes out most of the Jedis. It also showed the Jedi system as being contradictory and too obsessed with regulations while being not only incapable to defend its own but also mostly disinterested in preventing the rise of the Empire by eschewing politics.
The third trilogy allowed a fresh take on the Jedis: Luke's attempt to recreate the system that had allowed his father to become Darth Vader failed again by bringing forth Kylo Ren, his own fear of failure ruining any chance to save Kylo Ren from turning to the Dark Side. Meanwhile Rey, like Anakin a complete nobody with no noteworthy lineage, turned out to be uniquely talented with the force, punching above her weight even when confronted with the "classically trained" (but lacking serious guidance now completely undisciplined) Kylo Ren at least long enough to survive the outmatched encounter in the first movie.
The second movie of the new trilogy did what had to be done: Luke realizes the folly of trying to adhere strictly to the sacred texts and destroys them. Yes, this was not strictly necessary but the act was primarily symbolic as we hadn't directly seen much of them before: as Luke had to learn and Yoda tried to teach him before, being a Jedi was not about learning from books and only doing the right thing but about failure and confronting your fears and weaknesses not to simply defeat them but to learn from them. This is why Anakin fell for the dark side and why Luke failed to save Kylo Ren: rather than learn to acknowledge his fear and to see failure as an opportunity for growth, the fear had corrupted them. This is also why the ending scene with random kids using the force mattered: yes, it was very much on the nose but the point was that the force does not spring from the Jedi's sacred texts, the force comes from within and becoming a Jedi means growing as a person, not just getting better at using the force.
But that would have meant allowing Star Wars to evolve and that's not what many fans wanted, especially not when they were so deeply afraid of "politics" entering their allegory for a communist rebellion defeating the overwhelming American empire - err, sorry, I meant very serious apolitical sci-fi franchise. After all, they were already being forced into uncomfortable conversations about rooting for the genocidal ethnostate (not an ethnostate! they stopped using clones some time in the original trilogy but also it's woke identity politics that the storm trooper defector had to be played by a Black guy) wearing the sci-fi equivalent of Waffen-SS uniforms (there we go again calling everyone you don't like a nazi).
If you paid attention, the original trilogy was always more about the triumph of compassion over brute force and of friendship overcoming what a lone individual can not. Luke being potentially the most powerful force user would have meant nothing if he wouldn't have had Uncle Ben and Yoda helping him master his potential, his friends give him the emotional strength to continue and the rebels (and Ewoks) give him the opportunity to challenge Vader - and then Anakin's suffocated love for his own child winning against the Emperor's conditioning and allowing him to save Luke and defeat the Emperor.
And then Skywalker came out and threw all of that away in order to give us more slop and even bring back the Emperor so we could have a big fight scene with Kylo Ren randomly deciding to switch sides. Even if you disliked TLJ for the blue-haired girlboss blueballing our fighter hero or the Asian chick getting too much screentime or Luke being a pacifist or the gambling planet being a socialist soapbox or whatever complaint about politics you want to level at it, I challenge you to defend Rise of the Skywalker as a dignified Star Wars sequel rather than a hurriedly strewn together fan service shlock fest that completely flies in the face of both the trilogy and the larger narrative and thematic arcs altogether.
Sorry for ranting. I'll now step off my soap box again.
It's a false dichotomy that a movie has to be a "fresh take" or a rehash, with nothing in between or combination. Nihil sub sōle novum.
And different/unexpected != good, not by a long shot.
Simply, if core characters are changed to their opposites it fails to be the same story any longer. Change the name to "Space Opera" and no one would have cared.
I misspoke earlier when I implied agenda before, which while heavy-handed, wasn't what made me really angry. As mentioned elsewhere in thread it was the betrayal of Luke and Yoda.
(Also, the Empire was always modeled after fascist Nazi Germany, even down to the black, white, red colors, and storm-trooper terminology.)
If you want to see a progressive film made by grownups, watch "Brokeback Mountain", not this disrespectful pile of garbage.
And different/unexpected != good, not by a long shot.
Simply, if core characters are changed to their opposites it fails to be the same story any longer. Change the name to "Space Opera" and no one would have cared.
I misspoke earlier when I implied agenda before, which while heavy-handed, wasn't what made me really angry. As mentioned elsewhere in thread it was the betrayal of Luke and Yoda.
(Also, the Empire was always modeled after fascist Nazi Germany, even down to the black, white, red colors, and storm-trooper terminology.)
If you want to see a progressive film made by grownups, watch "Brokeback Mountain", not this disrespectful pile of garbage.
> Also, the Empire was always modeled after fascist Nazi Germany, even down to the black, white, red colors, and storm-trooper terminology.
Yes but it was also explicitly an allegory for the US in the Vietnam War. George Lucas stated as much in an interview.
> betrayal of Luke and Yoda
I'm still not sure what you see as betrayal. You seem upset with the decision to torch the sacred texts and I admit that was at least a bit heavy handed for what it was trying to do but it's hardly a betrayal. Disney had already wiped out the Extended Universe with the first movie so that can't be what colors your perception at this point.
There's nothing in the other two trilogies to suggest that Yoda would be deeply invested in the Jedi texts. If anything, his most important lesson for Luke is that he is afraid to fall for the Dark Side. TLJ simply revisits this fear as something he didn't fully overcome and that led to Ben's transformation into Kylo Ren. It doesn't portray Ben in a sympathetic light here either, he was already a flawed student and burdened by his own insecurities and shortcomings so Luke merely gave him an excuse to choose the Dark Side - and we're shown conflicting retellings of those events anyway with both retellings being clearly motivated and unreliable.
TFA set up Luke to have failed because there was clearly no big Jedi Academy in his hermitage and if he trained new Jedi before he must have had some reason to have stopped. TLJ gave him a motivation to retreat: his fear had never left him and by losing his nephew and best friend's son to the Dark Side over it, he chose to retreat to avoid causing more harm.
TLJ also gave Luke a full redemption arc. The destruction of the sacred texts symbolically throws off the shackles of dogma that he upheld in his training of new Jedi but that ultimately turned out to be inadequate to overcome his and Ben's own flaws. This establishes that Rey's Jedi training will be different and have to be a strengthening of her character rather than her discipline or abilities. Luke then sacrifices himself not only to help her and the other rebels escape but also to overcome Kylo Ren not with superior power but with compassion and intellect. He plays Kylo Ren's fury and desire for revenge like a fiddle and demonstrates its futility and impotence.
The prequel trilogy overindulged in the "pew pew lasers and swordfights" aspect of the setting the original trilogy provided, TLJ went back to the characters and the meaning behind their actions. It's kinda ironic you keep saying TLJ betrayed the characters because for all I can see it's the first new movie that takes the characters seriously and goes more than just skin deep.
Yes but it was also explicitly an allegory for the US in the Vietnam War. George Lucas stated as much in an interview.
> betrayal of Luke and Yoda
I'm still not sure what you see as betrayal. You seem upset with the decision to torch the sacred texts and I admit that was at least a bit heavy handed for what it was trying to do but it's hardly a betrayal. Disney had already wiped out the Extended Universe with the first movie so that can't be what colors your perception at this point.
There's nothing in the other two trilogies to suggest that Yoda would be deeply invested in the Jedi texts. If anything, his most important lesson for Luke is that he is afraid to fall for the Dark Side. TLJ simply revisits this fear as something he didn't fully overcome and that led to Ben's transformation into Kylo Ren. It doesn't portray Ben in a sympathetic light here either, he was already a flawed student and burdened by his own insecurities and shortcomings so Luke merely gave him an excuse to choose the Dark Side - and we're shown conflicting retellings of those events anyway with both retellings being clearly motivated and unreliable.
TFA set up Luke to have failed because there was clearly no big Jedi Academy in his hermitage and if he trained new Jedi before he must have had some reason to have stopped. TLJ gave him a motivation to retreat: his fear had never left him and by losing his nephew and best friend's son to the Dark Side over it, he chose to retreat to avoid causing more harm.
TLJ also gave Luke a full redemption arc. The destruction of the sacred texts symbolically throws off the shackles of dogma that he upheld in his training of new Jedi but that ultimately turned out to be inadequate to overcome his and Ben's own flaws. This establishes that Rey's Jedi training will be different and have to be a strengthening of her character rather than her discipline or abilities. Luke then sacrifices himself not only to help her and the other rebels escape but also to overcome Kylo Ren not with superior power but with compassion and intellect. He plays Kylo Ren's fury and desire for revenge like a fiddle and demonstrates its futility and impotence.
The prequel trilogy overindulged in the "pew pew lasers and swordfights" aspect of the setting the original trilogy provided, TLJ went back to the characters and the meaning behind their actions. It's kinda ironic you keep saying TLJ betrayed the characters because for all I can see it's the first new movie that takes the characters seriously and goes more than just skin deep.
You’re over analyzing the movie. It’s not nearly as profound or well thought out as you imply.
The sequel trilogy folks even admitted that they winged it and didn’t consult each other, on purpose. Resulting in a conflicted mess.
The direct take is that the epitome of hope character—who never gave up on anyone—is changed to an angry milk-drinking murderer who’s main plot point is giving up on family. In the most condescending way, at that.
The author didn’t understand or respect the character. Hamill agreed.
That you are not editing posts down to make a coherent point is perhaps a clue why you don’t appreciate ‘economy of story.’ But you should:
“perfection is attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away” –Exupéry
The sequel trilogy folks even admitted that they winged it and didn’t consult each other, on purpose. Resulting in a conflicted mess.
The direct take is that the epitome of hope character—who never gave up on anyone—is changed to an angry milk-drinking murderer who’s main plot point is giving up on family. In the most condescending way, at that.
The author didn’t understand or respect the character. Hamill agreed.
That you are not editing posts down to make a coherent point is perhaps a clue why you don’t appreciate ‘economy of story.’ But you should:
“perfection is attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away” –Exupéry
If I had more time, I would write shorter comments.
It does in theory, but passing through many layers of curation and standing up to the tests of time increases the likelihood of classics being more successful compared to a randomly sampled movie. Not that wild of an idea.
On the other side, a movie that never got struck down at any point in history won't be dramatically subversive nor give something you wouldn't have got from any of the thousands of area optimized mixed-up versions that emerged from the classics.
As a modern viewer you won't get much more from Romeo and Juliet than from the Titanic.
In that respect, randomly sampling movies is underrated and should be the go to if you're trying to change your life.
As a modern viewer you won't get much more from Romeo and Juliet than from the Titanic.
In that respect, randomly sampling movies is underrated and should be the go to if you're trying to change your life.
IIRC Titanic doesn't open with a joke about raping virgins.
Titanic isn't just any random 1997 movie... it may well be considered a classic some decades from now.
Good news, postmodernism is overcome, you don't have to ask questions like this anymore!
That's a very postmodern take.
yes, but the likelihood of it being life changing increases as you watch older movies that have been filtered by time over many suggestions by word-of-mouth.
I mean, not if you actually try to watch good films.
No. It doesn't apply "equally" to the Ant-Man 3 and Citizen Kane.
Ant-Man 3 definitely wins in the special effects department. Orson Welles could have spent a little bit more of the budget on explosions.
Then again, the three minute, single shot sequence that leads up to an explosion in his A Touch of Evil is more riveting to me than anything in the Marvel universe.
https://youtu.be/EhmYY5ZMXOY?feature=shared
https://youtu.be/EhmYY5ZMXOY?feature=shared
Sure. But the reason it doesn’t apply “equally” is not because citizen Kane is a classic, but because ant man 3 is mainstream blockbuster trash. People who frame marvel as the height of films today are just so… intellectually lazy.
I’ve shown quite a few people citizen Kane and, aside from a musing discomfort at the parallels of post modern trump like media manipulation (FRAUD), it really doesn’t resonate with people nearly as much as, say, Parasite, despite them probably being culturally closer to Kane.
Tl;dr if you’re going to show someone a “life changing film” pick something new that is similarly ambitious. Classics require too much effort to enjoy. It often doesn’t work.
I’ve shown quite a few people citizen Kane and, aside from a musing discomfort at the parallels of post modern trump like media manipulation (FRAUD), it really doesn’t resonate with people nearly as much as, say, Parasite, despite them probably being culturally closer to Kane.
Tl;dr if you’re going to show someone a “life changing film” pick something new that is similarly ambitious. Classics require too much effort to enjoy. It often doesn’t work.
The MCU was the height of films because it managed to wrangle more than half-a-century of comic book lore (much of it previously deemed unfilmable) into a coherent and compelling multi-film epic that was both entertaining and (lightly) philosphical and political. Through Endgame, it was an unprecedented undertaking involving the hard work of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of talented artists and technicians across the globe, marshalling untold resources over the span of a decade. And they actually pulled it off, producing a series of critical and commercial blockbusters that form (more or less) a single, sprawling narrative. It's unlikely we'll ever see anything like it again in our lifetimes.
The day when the project would lose its luster was always coming - as anyone who knows the history of Hollywood westerns and action flicks and blaxploitation could tell you - and you may gloat now that it's arrived. However, for a shining moment, literally billions of people had something special to share, and no amount of elitist posturing can take away from it.
(Citizen Kane's cool, too, of course. Gave us that clap meme and a baller Simpson's episode.)
The day when the project would lose its luster was always coming - as anyone who knows the history of Hollywood westerns and action flicks and blaxploitation could tell you - and you may gloat now that it's arrived. However, for a shining moment, literally billions of people had something special to share, and no amount of elitist posturing can take away from it.
(Citizen Kane's cool, too, of course. Gave us that clap meme and a baller Simpson's episode.)
>The MCU was the height of films because it managed to wrangle more than half-a-century of comic book lore (much of it previously deemed unfilmable) into a coherent and compelling multi-film epic that was both entertaining and (lightly) philosphical and political.
That's more of a parlor trick than art. "See how much simplistic comic book storytelling randomness I can fit in 30+ movies, and even live room for 70% of it be explosions and fight scenes".
>it was an unprecedented undertaking involving the hard work of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of talented artists and technicians across the globe
"Talented" is begging the question.
IMNSHO, not only is the writing, acting, and directing mediocre by-the-numbers blockbuster crap, but even what they supposedly do best (the special effects and fights and such) are shodilly made.
There are movies made from comics that are worth a damn cinematically (Logan, Sin City, Watchmen, Constantine) but 99% of MCU is not in that set.
That's more of a parlor trick than art. "See how much simplistic comic book storytelling randomness I can fit in 30+ movies, and even live room for 70% of it be explosions and fight scenes".
>it was an unprecedented undertaking involving the hard work of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of talented artists and technicians across the globe
"Talented" is begging the question.
IMNSHO, not only is the writing, acting, and directing mediocre by-the-numbers blockbuster crap, but even what they supposedly do best (the special effects and fights and such) are shodilly made.
There are movies made from comics that are worth a damn cinematically (Logan, Sin City, Watchmen, Constantine) but 99% of MCU is not in that set.
I think Black Panther came closest to being good, as a non-colonial/post-colonial vision of Africa. But the last hour is just the same as every other MCU movie, eminently skippable.
Neil Gaiman does decently well in the adaptations that involve him, I must say.
Neil Gaiman does decently well in the adaptations that involve him, I must say.
A more compelling thesis would be that the MCU films presided over a vacuum of good blockbusters during a period of decline in American cinema, brought about by risk-averse studios during the mortgage crisis.
The legacy of the films—technical achievements, continuity and coherence of narrative, ambition, etc.—are laudatory in some respects. Obviously, they made an enormous amount of money. But it's worth examining their "critical" success. Putting my personal opinions aside, do any of these films hold up to the standard bearers of early 90s and 00s blockbusters? I'm not convinced.
The MCU films are inherently derivative works with little dramatic tension; we already know the characters and that they will win. The narrative and dialogue is paint-by-numbers, and the action sequences are exhausting, low-stakes, and sterile.
That's fine for a theme park ride—get some thrills if that's your cup of tea—but it's not enough for a critically good blockbuster film. That's fine for teen boys and young adults, but it's not enough for a more diverse, discerning audience. Does anyone think any of these films, let alone their entirety, hold a candle to Jurassic Park, The Matrix, or The Pirates of the Caribbean? They're equally blockbusters, but they will be remembered long after the MCU films are forgotten.
The legacy of the films—technical achievements, continuity and coherence of narrative, ambition, etc.—are laudatory in some respects. Obviously, they made an enormous amount of money. But it's worth examining their "critical" success. Putting my personal opinions aside, do any of these films hold up to the standard bearers of early 90s and 00s blockbusters? I'm not convinced.
The MCU films are inherently derivative works with little dramatic tension; we already know the characters and that they will win. The narrative and dialogue is paint-by-numbers, and the action sequences are exhausting, low-stakes, and sterile.
That's fine for a theme park ride—get some thrills if that's your cup of tea—but it's not enough for a critically good blockbuster film. That's fine for teen boys and young adults, but it's not enough for a more diverse, discerning audience. Does anyone think any of these films, let alone their entirety, hold a candle to Jurassic Park, The Matrix, or The Pirates of the Caribbean? They're equally blockbusters, but they will be remembered long after the MCU films are forgotten.
Nah, a generation grew up with the MCU films, they will remain in their minds for the rest of their lives. The films you mentioned are probably the ones you grew up with and the ones that you use as benchmarks. The generation before that was Star Wars, before that it was historical epics, etc etc etc.
Just like with music, "the best" is often the things you experience in your mid-teens to mid-twenties. And when you grow up you'll develop some more critical thinking and may appreciate older or newer things.
Just like with music, "the best" is often the things you experience in your mid-teens to mid-twenties. And when you grow up you'll develop some more critical thinking and may appreciate older or newer things.
Ironically, it's exactly because a generation grew up with the MCU films—and very little else—during Hollywood's "down" period that they're unable to contextualize and evaluate those films on their lack of critical merits.
> And when you grow up you'll develop some more critical thinking and may appreciate older or newer things.
Your argumentation is just as childish as your taste.
> And when you grow up you'll develop some more critical thinking and may appreciate older or newer things.
Your argumentation is just as childish as your taste.
Maybe that’s true but I don’t think it is. Star Wars was before my time but I still enjoyed those movies. I was a little too young for the Matrix when it came out, and when I saw it as an adult I really liked it.
Not all summer blockbusters are created equal.
Not all summer blockbusters are created equal.
> Through Endgame, it was an unprecedented undertaking involving the hard work of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of talented artists and technicians across the globe, marshalling untold resources over the span of a decade
Just imagine what those artists could have accomplished working in the service of an artistic vision instead of churning out corporate slop.
Live action super hero dramas started with Superman and reached maturity in Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies. Highlights are Robocop and Unbreakable (throw a Batman adaptation in there, probably The Dark Knight). By the time the MCU rolled around, the genre was well past middle age. Despite billions of dollars of life support, it will be remembered as the last tortured breaths of a somewhat embarrassing cultural episode.
Just imagine what those artists could have accomplished working in the service of an artistic vision instead of churning out corporate slop.
Live action super hero dramas started with Superman and reached maturity in Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies. Highlights are Robocop and Unbreakable (throw a Batman adaptation in there, probably The Dark Knight). By the time the MCU rolled around, the genre was well past middle age. Despite billions of dollars of life support, it will be remembered as the last tortured breaths of a somewhat embarrassing cultural episode.
High budget artistic vision does not translate to financial success though; it's ultimately a tradeoff.
That said, good films don't need high budget.
I don't agree with your last take, either; the MCU was when the superhero movie formula was perfected. We're now in a post-MCU phase where what is being produced just can't reach the same appeal anymore. Morbius and Madame Web are outright flops. They seem to be rebooting Fantastic Four for the 4th time. Any sequel to established MCU characters seem to be independent / standalone films, sometimes a bit gimmicky like Sam Raimi's Doctor Strange horror crossover episode or Thor's 80's glam rock direction.
That said, good films don't need high budget.
I don't agree with your last take, either; the MCU was when the superhero movie formula was perfected. We're now in a post-MCU phase where what is being produced just can't reach the same appeal anymore. Morbius and Madame Web are outright flops. They seem to be rebooting Fantastic Four for the 4th time. Any sequel to established MCU characters seem to be independent / standalone films, sometimes a bit gimmicky like Sam Raimi's Doctor Strange horror crossover episode or Thor's 80's glam rock direction.
It's not always a tradeoff. Americans made big budget, artistically accomplished, highly successful movies in the 60s and 70s.
As far as the rest of your comment, I'll just repeat my view that Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies are far better than MCU. And Robocop/Unbreakable are the best the genre produced.
As far as the rest of your comment, I'll just repeat my view that Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies are far better than MCU. And Robocop/Unbreakable are the best the genre produced.
Just because something is hard does not make it worthwhile. It is populist slop, doesn't matter how many people worked on it.
I never liked Citizen Kane that much. Direction, cinematography, camera angles were inovative for that time and I can understand why it's important from historical perspective. But the story leaves me cold. On the other hand, 12 Angry Men or Casablanca are masterpieces in my eyes.
That's the other thing to keep in mind, seeing things in perspective for the time; these movies were literally groundbreaking, like Wizard of Oz' transition to color film (compare with e.g. Avatar which popularised 3D film), Jurassic Park's use of CGI blended with models and live actors, the unfortunately one-off Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Toy Story's full CGI film that revolutionised animated filmmaking (arguably for the worst since it eventually came at the cost of "traditional" western cartoons).
It feels like it's getting harder to do something new.
It feels like it's getting harder to do something new.
12 Angry Men was an accidental master class in failure to apply Bayesian reasoning.
The question was "doesn't that [quality, to be able to stay with you and change you] apply to every film?"
And my answer is: not exactly, it applies best to movies that are not "mainstream blockbuster trash".
I'm pretty sure we can find some people for which some of the 200 movies in the Avengers franchize resonated with them and changed their life. Especially since billions saw them (and unprobable events will tend to happen as the sample size grows). After all, Hallmark movies also resonate with many people. And in the right conditions, say our dog just died, they can make even the more cynical of us cry.
But generally, better movies have that quality more. This is what makes the better in the first place: touching on some essential aspect of humanity in a non-trite way. Doesn't have to be classics as in "old movies favored by critics", just generally movies made with more vision, integrity, and core message than "look 2 hours of explosions and fancy effects mixed with reshased cookie cutter dialog", or "look at these two cute young people fall in love, have a falling out, and getting back again") will tend to resonate with people more deeply and in more nuanced ways.
And my answer is: not exactly, it applies best to movies that are not "mainstream blockbuster trash".
I'm pretty sure we can find some people for which some of the 200 movies in the Avengers franchize resonated with them and changed their life. Especially since billions saw them (and unprobable events will tend to happen as the sample size grows). After all, Hallmark movies also resonate with many people. And in the right conditions, say our dog just died, they can make even the more cynical of us cry.
But generally, better movies have that quality more. This is what makes the better in the first place: touching on some essential aspect of humanity in a non-trite way. Doesn't have to be classics as in "old movies favored by critics", just generally movies made with more vision, integrity, and core message than "look 2 hours of explosions and fancy effects mixed with reshased cookie cutter dialog", or "look at these two cute young people fall in love, have a falling out, and getting back again") will tend to resonate with people more deeply and in more nuanced ways.
Not everyone watchs a film for intellectual pursuits, some just want to enjoy a story or relax and unwind.
Well, then they're wrong, and should change their ways, similar to someone who just eats fast food because "that's what they like, they don't want to be challenged by food".
I prefer to be a little more provocative than going with the conventional wisdom and just saying: "well, more power to them".
They need to put in the work to get that increased power :)
I prefer to be a little more provocative than going with the conventional wisdom and just saying: "well, more power to them".
They need to put in the work to get that increased power :)
If my whole worldview was upended 50 times or more each year by classic great films, my ego psyche and would lay crumbled on the floor.
You should show more respect for the people you depend upon to maintain your sense or intellectual and moral superiority. Where would you be without them?
You should show more respect for the people you depend upon to maintain your sense or intellectual and moral superiority. Where would you be without them?
I always find these attacks on perceived elitism extremely inverted. Someone who recognizes the importance of challenging classics implicitly recognizes that this holds value for anyone. On the other hand "don't be an elitist, the mailman doesn't need to read the Iliad" is not as humanistic of a position as many people think it is.
The pseudo-egalitarian idea that there is no difference in value when it comes to what people consume depends on the nasty, unspoken idea that the masses are just too stupid to want to do anything seriously challenging.
The pseudo-egalitarian idea that there is no difference in value when it comes to what people consume depends on the nasty, unspoken idea that the masses are just too stupid to want to do anything seriously challenging.
> "don't be an elitist, the mailman doesn't need to read the Iliad"
That's not what I meant originally.
It's okay if the mailman wants to watch the newest Marvel movie to relax and unwind after work. Or maybe the mailman grew up reading the comics and the Marvel movies are a dream come true, despite their flaws.
Why is it not okay for the mailman to have pursuits that aren't some way related to improving oneself or related to intellectual curiosity? Maybe they read the Iliad some other day or when they have more time or are in the mood for it, no judgement there.
I think people are talking past my original comment's point. If anything its an elitist view that the mailman is wasting their time if they aren't doing something productive. That was my original point at least.
That's not what I meant originally.
It's okay if the mailman wants to watch the newest Marvel movie to relax and unwind after work. Or maybe the mailman grew up reading the comics and the Marvel movies are a dream come true, despite their flaws.
Why is it not okay for the mailman to have pursuits that aren't some way related to improving oneself or related to intellectual curiosity? Maybe they read the Iliad some other day or when they have more time or are in the mood for it, no judgement there.
I think people are talking past my original comment's point. If anything its an elitist view that the mailman is wasting their time if they aren't doing something productive. That was my original point at least.
>You should show more respect for the people you depend upon to maintain your sense or intellectual and moral superiority. Where would you be without them?
Isn't a better question: where would they be with access to better education and more opportunities to cultivate their taste?
Or is that only for people with "intellectual and moral superiority", and they should be content with their blockbusters and Billboard Top 100?
Isn't a better question: where would they be with access to better education and more opportunities to cultivate their taste?
Or is that only for people with "intellectual and moral superiority", and they should be content with their blockbusters and Billboard Top 100?
Not everyone is trying to improve themselves or learn something.
Nothing about watching a dumb movie to escape the world and relax for two hours is unhealthy; probably improves mental well being. How is that related to unhealthy food?
Again, not everyone wants power. You might want to try being more proactive in your compassion.
Nothing about watching a dumb movie to escape the world and relax for two hours is unhealthy; probably improves mental well being. How is that related to unhealthy food?
Again, not everyone wants power. You might want to try being more proactive in your compassion.
That’s great. And if that’s what you want I think “the classics” are generally not a good choice for the vast majority of people.
Well I think citizen kane is powerful and parasite is terrible. So what have we proved? Taste is indisputable, I guess.
Well, I, for one, dispute personal taste.
Taste needs to be cultivated.
Even if two people with cultivated tastes don't agree on everything (or anything), their opinions on say movies or music are worth more than some guy's who just "likes what he likes" and never really got into exploring that space any deeper.
Taste needs to be cultivated.
Even if two people with cultivated tastes don't agree on everything (or anything), their opinions on say movies or music are worth more than some guy's who just "likes what he likes" and never really got into exploring that space any deeper.
If taste is indisputable then appealing to classics as a must watch cohort makes even less sense
I was responding to your tl;dr not the GPs point. I think people who love Citizen Kane should encourage other people to try it, and people who love Parasite should encourage other people to try it, and we shouldn't make broad pre-judgements like "because you are younger than X years you won't like this movie that's more than Y years old." Obviously if we know someone else's particular taste we might be able to guess that they will strongly like or dislike a particular movie (e.g. my mom dislikes any violence, she would hate Parasite).
Of course not.
I completely get your point. Still I would advise to be careful. Movies don't follow the same scrutiny than say, academic papers. Deliberate inaccuracies are common. Obviously, of course. Why I'm saying this then? First it can of course create a false understanding of the past events (if of course the movie was set into some historical context). This by itself might be not dangerous, but it may lead to drawing completely wrong conclusions. What requires even more care is a deliberate psychological manipulations by the director to bypass critical rational thinking. As it is with every content, I ask three most important questions: what? who? why? What is exactly showed to me? Who is showing it to me? Why is it showed to me?
Remember that the professor isn't teaching an American or native English language work to people in another country. It's not American culture, except that we happen to read it a lot (for good reason); it's not English language except incidentally.
The context of the Iliad, ancient Greece, is completely alien to the modern US, just as it is to modern China. A Chinese language translation would be just as valid. Modern Americans and Chinese have far more in common with each other, of course.
The only argument is that many modern English words have ancient Greek roots, but that just makes the Chinese translator's job harder.
The context of the Iliad, ancient Greece, is completely alien to the modern US, just as it is to modern China. A Chinese language translation would be just as valid. Modern Americans and Chinese have far more in common with each other, of course.
The only argument is that many modern English words have ancient Greek roots, but that just makes the Chinese translator's job harder.
> The context of the Iliad, ancient Greece, is completely alien to the modern US, just as it is to modern China
I'm not sure about that. We do not still have the same emphasis on the classics as a century ago, but western societies still inherit a lot culturally from ancient Greece.
Here in Canada, I was taught Greek mythology in school. We examined a play by Sophocles in high school literature. Civics class inevitably brings up Athenian democracy. Philosophy began with Thales. Music began with Pythagoras.
Or to put it another way: the Simpsons once did a parody of the Odyssey. That only works if the audience knows the story of Odysseus. Which of course, they do. Most westerners know it, implicitly, in much the same way the average Chinese person knows Water Margin even if they've never read it.
I'm not sure about that. We do not still have the same emphasis on the classics as a century ago, but western societies still inherit a lot culturally from ancient Greece.
Here in Canada, I was taught Greek mythology in school. We examined a play by Sophocles in high school literature. Civics class inevitably brings up Athenian democracy. Philosophy began with Thales. Music began with Pythagoras.
Or to put it another way: the Simpsons once did a parody of the Odyssey. That only works if the audience knows the story of Odysseus. Which of course, they do. Most westerners know it, implicitly, in much the same way the average Chinese person knows Water Margin even if they've never read it.
I wrote the GP comment. Thanks for your comment; it clarifies my thinking and expands my perspective.
Let's not conflate (and I failed to differentiate) Ancient Greece and 'Classical' Greece. The Odyssey and Iliad are older than Classical Greece, the term I'm using for the world of the philosophers, mathematicians, playwrights, etc. I understand that that the two works were core texts for the Classical Greeks, but my impression is that they were from prior 'civilization' (maybe not the perfect term), perhaps like Beowulf is to people in the modern anglo world.
The world of the Ancient Greeks is completely alien to ours, IMHO. Its culture, morality, behavior, customs, etc. are all so different that all we have in common with it as what any humans have in common. Read the Odyssey from a modern perspective - it's bizarre, inexplicable in modern context. For example, Odysseus is a complete failure as a person, a leader, a spouse - he only survives and accomplishes anything because Athena bails him out. The only way to understand it is to try to grasp the Ancient Greek context, where it does make sense. That makes it very interesting and valuable, but it's alien.
Still, I overstated my point in the GP. Alien or not, it is part of our culture, even if mostly indirectly - generations have read it, have been influenced by it, and what it influenced was passed down to us, and we pass it to the next generation. There's no question of that.
> We examined a play by Sophocles in high school literature. Civics class inevitably brings up Athenian democracy. Philosophy began with Thales. Music began with Pythagoras.
That's 'Classical' Greece.
Let's not conflate (and I failed to differentiate) Ancient Greece and 'Classical' Greece. The Odyssey and Iliad are older than Classical Greece, the term I'm using for the world of the philosophers, mathematicians, playwrights, etc. I understand that that the two works were core texts for the Classical Greeks, but my impression is that they were from prior 'civilization' (maybe not the perfect term), perhaps like Beowulf is to people in the modern anglo world.
The world of the Ancient Greeks is completely alien to ours, IMHO. Its culture, morality, behavior, customs, etc. are all so different that all we have in common with it as what any humans have in common. Read the Odyssey from a modern perspective - it's bizarre, inexplicable in modern context. For example, Odysseus is a complete failure as a person, a leader, a spouse - he only survives and accomplishes anything because Athena bails him out. The only way to understand it is to try to grasp the Ancient Greek context, where it does make sense. That makes it very interesting and valuable, but it's alien.
Still, I overstated my point in the GP. Alien or not, it is part of our culture, even if mostly indirectly - generations have read it, have been influenced by it, and what it influenced was passed down to us, and we pass it to the next generation. There's no question of that.
> We examined a play by Sophocles in high school literature. Civics class inevitably brings up Athenian democracy. Philosophy began with Thales. Music began with Pythagoras.
That's 'Classical' Greece.
Interest in the classics like these isn’t a solid lineage. It’s mostly an invention of Neoclassicism, and was enabled by rediscovery of the texts in Islamic libraries. But neoclassicism still strongly influences North American culture, specifically our civil buildings. It was the counter culture movement when the USA split from Britain. While a lineage is assumed I do agree they are relatively alien to today’s culture.
They aren't "classics", they're pre-classical epic poetry. There _was_ a solid lineage of interest in greek and roman philosophy that lasted all throughout the middle ages, and there were latin translations of parts of the Iliad that were taught. The complete Iliad and Odyssey weren't rediscovered from Islamic libraries, but they were carried west by Byzantine scholars. Neo-classicism wasn't a counter culture from Britain -- it was just as popular in London as it was in Washington -- it's not like England was living in the dark ages while America was in the enlightenment.
Homer is a fairly core part of western culture and you see references to it everywhere. Somewhat famously in O Brother Where Art There, but there's a long list of movies and novels that have referenced it. And idioms from it like "a Trojan horse" and "achilles heel" are all over western culture. It's not a biblical-level cultural touch stone, but it's fairly important.
Homer is a fairly core part of western culture and you see references to it everywhere. Somewhat famously in O Brother Where Art There, but there's a long list of movies and novels that have referenced it. And idioms from it like "a Trojan horse" and "achilles heel" are all over western culture. It's not a biblical-level cultural touch stone, but it's fairly important.
> The complete Iliad and Odyssey weren't rediscovered from Islamic libraries, but they were carried west by Byzantine scholars
To expand, the 8th century Irish were still copying Greek texts and brought them to Germany (Schottenklöster). Southern Italy used Greek through the 12th century, with the Sicilian Norman kings' courts composing a lot of Greek poetry.
Islamic civilizations cared little for the literary heritage of Greece, unfortunately. (Once upon a time, I dug deeply trying to learn how they handled engagement with Paganism. Answer: They didn't, because they didn't read nor translate Homer at al.) They focused on mathematics and science, their achievements came into Europe through Spain (e.g. the Toledo school) around the 12th century, thus Latinized names like Avicenna, Averroes...
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/multilingualism-in-...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20503890
To expand, the 8th century Irish were still copying Greek texts and brought them to Germany (Schottenklöster). Southern Italy used Greek through the 12th century, with the Sicilian Norman kings' courts composing a lot of Greek poetry.
Islamic civilizations cared little for the literary heritage of Greece, unfortunately. (Once upon a time, I dug deeply trying to learn how they handled engagement with Paganism. Answer: They didn't, because they didn't read nor translate Homer at al.) They focused on mathematics and science, their achievements came into Europe through Spain (e.g. the Toledo school) around the 12th century, thus Latinized names like Avicenna, Averroes...
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/multilingualism-in-...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20503890
An essential detail of the story: The Islamic world was the only source of Aristotle, whose writings were lost to Europe through the Middle Ages.
[deleted]
The Romans absorbed a ridiculous amount of Greek culture and also founded London 2000 years ago. Virtually everyone of high education from the English speaking countries and their cultural parents were at least aware of the Greek epics, if not educated with them. The White House looks like a Greek temple for gods sake.
Greek culture is everywhere in the English speaking world, they are very much one of the primary influential ancestors of our culture in a way that it absolutely is not in the Chinese speaking world.
Greek culture is everywhere in the English speaking world, they are very much one of the primary influential ancestors of our culture in a way that it absolutely is not in the Chinese speaking world.
The Romans saw themselves as the real life continuity of Greek mythology, specifically as a result of the events of the Iliad by way of the Aenid. Which indicates the same for Roman Britain / London. In addition to the mythology indicating the same for Britain. If you query the right people who have it as part of their culture to track historical continuity, they will point out the relevant structural parallels between Ancient Rome and the USA (and therefore between Ancient Greece and the USA).
Not so much compared to the Southern Europe, which we basically are Romans 2.0 considering most of the architecture, customs and laws.
> The context of the Iliad, ancient Greece, is completely alien to the modern US, just as it is to modern China
I was taught Greek mythology in grade school, read the Odyssey and Iliad in middle school English, Antigone and Oedipus Rex in high school, and the story of Orpheus and Eurydice was a recurring theme in some college courses but that's a bit specific. Our philosophy courses in highschool and college started with Plato.
And within larger culture, there was the animated film Hercules, the Percy Jackson novels, and a broadway musical based on Orpheus and Eurydice that swept the Tony awards in the last twenty years.
American culture is obsessed with ancient Greece and its stories.
I was taught Greek mythology in grade school, read the Odyssey and Iliad in middle school English, Antigone and Oedipus Rex in high school, and the story of Orpheus and Eurydice was a recurring theme in some college courses but that's a bit specific. Our philosophy courses in highschool and college started with Plato.
And within larger culture, there was the animated film Hercules, the Percy Jackson novels, and a broadway musical based on Orpheus and Eurydice that swept the Tony awards in the last twenty years.
American culture is obsessed with ancient Greece and its stories.
> American culture is obsessed with ancient Greece and its stories.
Because it’s so damned cool. I’ll never understand how Abrahamic religions won the “war” over Greek/Roman gods. Plus a pantheon makes sense - trying to explain away babies born with cancer is pretty hard in Abrahamic religions. Not so much when you have various gods that don’t really care about you and just do their own thing.
Because it’s so damned cool. I’ll never understand how Abrahamic religions won the “war” over Greek/Roman gods. Plus a pantheon makes sense - trying to explain away babies born with cancer is pretty hard in Abrahamic religions. Not so much when you have various gods that don’t really care about you and just do their own thing.
It seems to me like an historical accident caused by pervasive brutality of living in Roman empire. Pantheon might have made sense to explain it, but people were primed to expect a savior nevertheless. The story of Jesus was a perfect fit and the Jewish monotheism got imported with it.
More like Aquinas and the early Christians adapted the Middle Eastern tales to the Roman/Greek culture based people, because if you told us the Europeans couldn't neither eat pork or drink wine, the people would revolt in a breeze.
> ancient Greece, is completely alien to the modern US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_(disambiguation)#United_S...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_(disambiguation)#United_S...
The Iliad is the first book I read cover to cover. At 15. I hated reading fictions growing up and just got away reading cliff notes during middle school. The book changed my life not because I learned anything from the texts but I learned the merits of reading something cover to cover without taking shortcuts.
I also learned that some people can recite the entire book from memory which was my first realization of “100x” myth.
I also learned that some people can recite the entire book from memory which was my first realization of “100x” myth.
> I also learned that some people can recite the entire book from memory which was my first realization of “100x” myth.
I don't know about memorising translations, but the Iliad was composed specifically so it could be memorised, and it was long repeated (even in competition form!) before it was ever written down. The Greek original follows a strict dactylic hexameter with rhymes and other tricks to make it easier to memorize.
It's crazy to think in a world of writing that back then people memorised entire books/songs/poems like the Iliad instead of simply reading a copy. It makes sense, in a way; copying such a long text would take ages, especially with writing implements at the time, but I'm still amazed by the dedication these ancient people had.
I don't know about memorising translations, but the Iliad was composed specifically so it could be memorised, and it was long repeated (even in competition form!) before it was ever written down. The Greek original follows a strict dactylic hexameter with rhymes and other tricks to make it easier to memorize.
It's crazy to think in a world of writing that back then people memorised entire books/songs/poems like the Iliad instead of simply reading a copy. It makes sense, in a way; copying such a long text would take ages, especially with writing implements at the time, but I'm still amazed by the dedication these ancient people had.
I've always found it fascinating how the Polynesians kept records of their families' history. Each family has a song, taught from one generation to the next. Each generation gets to add their exploits as a verse to the song, which can grow very long yet must still be memorized, recited, and taught to one's children.
Last summer I read a translation that tries to keep the rhyme and rythm. For parts I just got enchanted and kept reading and reading way longer than normal for me. How great it would be to hear this from someone who memorised it.
There are still people who try. There are videos online of people who have memorised the ancient Greek (with modern accents, of course), like https://youtu.be/Zzal-36eIoY. I think at some point Boris Johnson of all people started reciting a bit of the Iliad during an interview at some point.
Don't expect the full version on Youtube, though; the 24 books seem to all take an hour of each, and I don't think anyone has cared to spend a full day reading ancient Greek into a microphone yet, let alone recite it for an audience.
Unfortunately, I can't really find an audiobook version of the English translation of the Iliad. Perhaps AI can be used for chores like this, as human speakers would probably lose the rhythm often, which I imagine must make accurate audiobook recordings in this style quite difficult.
Don't expect the full version on Youtube, though; the 24 books seem to all take an hour of each, and I don't think anyone has cared to spend a full day reading ancient Greek into a microphone yet, let alone recite it for an audience.
Unfortunately, I can't really find an audiobook version of the English translation of the Iliad. Perhaps AI can be used for chores like this, as human speakers would probably lose the rhythm often, which I imagine must make accurate audiobook recordings in this style quite difficult.
> Boris Johnson of all people
Wasn’t he a Classics scholar at arguably the best university in the world? That’s exactly who’d I expect to be able to recite it!
Edit: “Johnson won a scholarship to study Literae Humaniores at Balliol College, Oxford, a four-year course in Classics, ancient languages, literature, history, and philosophy” … also won an academic prize for Classics at Eton, which is notably academically rigorous
Wasn’t he a Classics scholar at arguably the best university in the world? That’s exactly who’d I expect to be able to recite it!
Edit: “Johnson won a scholarship to study Literae Humaniores at Balliol College, Oxford, a four-year course in Classics, ancient languages, literature, history, and philosophy” … also won an academic prize for Classics at Eton, which is notably academically rigorous
Are you referring to an actual interview with Boris Johnson or are you referring to the debate with Mary Beard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
I forgot the exact context, I just knew it seemed to come out of nowhere. I think it's this tidbit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzJQ0TcBmqU
There are some tricks like stock phrases that often take up half a line, but rhyme is not among them. Epic poetry wasn't written to rhyme.
Perhaps "rhyme" isn't the right word. There's a certain flow to the way some of the words are laid out. Part of that is the metre shaping the words possible but part of it also seems very deliberate.
It certainly doesn't have much of the last syllable rhyme you would expect today.
It certainly doesn't have much of the last syllable rhyme you would expect today.
The other factor is that I suspect the amount of stories was less back then; nowadays, every week there's hundreds of books, thousands of webpages, movies, etc being released.
But 500 years ago most people couldn't even read.
But 500 years ago most people couldn't even read.
And you have to have writing to begin with...
Consider also the degree of investment this requires from society as a whole. To learn to recite large works from memory like that pretty much requires a person who dedicates their life entirely to the craft (excluding other productive work), not just learning the techniques and the stories themselves, but also eventually teaching others to carry on. These are all extra mouths to feed by the rest, and yet some form of it was historically extremely widespread in pre-literate societies. It just goes to show how important stories and generational memory are to us as species.
Consider also the degree of investment this requires from society as a whole. To learn to recite large works from memory like that pretty much requires a person who dedicates their life entirely to the craft (excluding other productive work), not just learning the techniques and the stories themselves, but also eventually teaching others to carry on. These are all extra mouths to feed by the rest, and yet some form of it was historically extremely widespread in pre-literate societies. It just goes to show how important stories and generational memory are to us as species.
[deleted]
Is it actually true that it requires so much time? Eg do you see it today with Bedouin tribesmen memorising their many epic poems? I would have assumed the transfer would happen, for example, when the ‘productive work’ to be done is ‘sitting around watching over the animals in the evening’.
Certainly it is true that the ancient Greeks had professional performers, but I’m not sure that’s necessary.
Certainly it is true that the ancient Greeks had professional performers, but I’m not sure that’s necessary.
It depends. If you want to just retell stories broadly, only preserving the overall narrative, then no, it's not necessary. But if you want to recite them word for word consistently - which many cultures did and do value - then yes, it requires a lot of rote learning, and learning of various associated memorization techniques.
Thus not all cultures evolved such a distinct profession, but many did. Some particularly impressive examples include the Mongolian Epic of Gesar and the Kyrgyz Epic of Manas. The latter is notable for having over 500,000 lines of verse, and there are living performers capable of reciting the whole thing end to end (which takes several days).
Thus not all cultures evolved such a distinct profession, but many did. Some particularly impressive examples include the Mongolian Epic of Gesar and the Kyrgyz Epic of Manas. The latter is notable for having over 500,000 lines of verse, and there are living performers capable of reciting the whole thing end to end (which takes several days).
> which many cultures did and do value
Eh. That comes with a lot of caveats. There's an entire branch to library science (yes, that's a thing) dedicated to storing and analysing different "editions" of the same text because it helps trace how stories spread over time. Usually large parts of the text will be the same but there will be minor changes, often inconsequential, in one edition versus another.
> it requires a lot of rote learning, and learning of various associated memorization techniques
Sure, if you today want to memorize an entire work like that, you will need to do that. But this ignores the historical context. Nowadays you may hear dozens of sophisticated tales every day. You can't even watch the news without hearing narratives, often deliberately constructed to have heroes and villains and story arcs to make boring events sound interesting. Back then, especially in remote villages, your material was much more limited and there was much more work that allowed for telling or listening to stories and songs.
This also ignores the survivorship bias: the people who ended up reciting these stories were likely already interested in memorizing them and found it easier to do so. For example, certain forms of autism literally would have predisposed people to being able to commit such stories to memory and recite them word-for-word, given enough time and opportunities to do so. Telling them in an interesting way then would just have been a craft you'd hone through repetition.
It's also fallacious to think of this as a distinct profession inherently. Without the separation of labor the concept of a "profession" makes little sense even if different people might prefer doing different kinds of work and thus naturally divide some parts of labor without a formal distinction (e.g. in a gift economy it's perfectly plausible for the guy who is really good at making tools to spend more of his time on tools for others who'd in turn take over some of his other work to allow him to focus on that). Yes, at some point memorizing and reciting stories becomes so much work you don't have time for anything else and a culture might recognize that as a distinct profession the same way it might have shamans or holy people, but I'd argue that often oral cultures would strive perfectly fine, even when it comes to longer works.
Now, being able to create such an extensive work and spread it to other groups/tribes/towns is another matter and would indeed be more likely to happen in the presence of a distinct profession. But of course it's no accident that there are so many parallels between historical epics.
Eh. That comes with a lot of caveats. There's an entire branch to library science (yes, that's a thing) dedicated to storing and analysing different "editions" of the same text because it helps trace how stories spread over time. Usually large parts of the text will be the same but there will be minor changes, often inconsequential, in one edition versus another.
> it requires a lot of rote learning, and learning of various associated memorization techniques
Sure, if you today want to memorize an entire work like that, you will need to do that. But this ignores the historical context. Nowadays you may hear dozens of sophisticated tales every day. You can't even watch the news without hearing narratives, often deliberately constructed to have heroes and villains and story arcs to make boring events sound interesting. Back then, especially in remote villages, your material was much more limited and there was much more work that allowed for telling or listening to stories and songs.
This also ignores the survivorship bias: the people who ended up reciting these stories were likely already interested in memorizing them and found it easier to do so. For example, certain forms of autism literally would have predisposed people to being able to commit such stories to memory and recite them word-for-word, given enough time and opportunities to do so. Telling them in an interesting way then would just have been a craft you'd hone through repetition.
It's also fallacious to think of this as a distinct profession inherently. Without the separation of labor the concept of a "profession" makes little sense even if different people might prefer doing different kinds of work and thus naturally divide some parts of labor without a formal distinction (e.g. in a gift economy it's perfectly plausible for the guy who is really good at making tools to spend more of his time on tools for others who'd in turn take over some of his other work to allow him to focus on that). Yes, at some point memorizing and reciting stories becomes so much work you don't have time for anything else and a culture might recognize that as a distinct profession the same way it might have shamans or holy people, but I'd argue that often oral cultures would strive perfectly fine, even when it comes to longer works.
Now, being able to create such an extensive work and spread it to other groups/tribes/towns is another matter and would indeed be more likely to happen in the presence of a distinct profession. But of course it's no accident that there are so many parallels between historical epics.
This was good:
"That is the second key to reaching cynical teenagers: they must be treated like men and women whose decisions and opinions matter."
"That is the second key to reaching cynical teenagers: they must be treated like men and women whose decisions and opinions matter."
It’s obviously the key to reaching anyone but the phrasing is genius.
Our prejudice and contempt can prevent us from even getting through.
Our prejudice and contempt can prevent us from even getting through.
Dan Brown, whatever your opinion of him, did a good job depicting this in The Da Vinci Code (might have been A&D, been a while since I read either). Langdon would recall teaching these subjects and students would interject and he’d take them seriously until he convinced them of whatever the point was.
Of course, with IB/AP courses, there’s no time to teach well because there’s more material than can be taught within a year.
Of course, with IB/AP courses, there’s no time to teach well because there’s more material than can be taught within a year.
They must be treated as the young adults they are, whose decisions and opinions matter.
Just be aware that Mandarin has different pronouns (characters) for male and female, as with other European languages(Spanish, French, Italian etc), so it might just be a case of the teacher simply thinking and hence translating in that language, rather than some sort of bias (inasmuch as the bias is inherent in the language).
Right, the first thing the professor should be doing to prepare Chinese students to modern American college is to teach them that categorising people into men and women is disallowed.
Being able to rewrite your essay after feedback makes so much sense.
I wonder why this isn't standard. I guess the extra work involved.
I wonder why this isn't standard. I guess the extra work involved.
What the author describes sounds similar to the normal process of reviewing a first or even a second draft, but with extra terror and bullying built into it.
Every essay I receive is graded with a terrible harshness. Almost no one gets an A on the first try. But all students are given a second try. I return their essays with dozens of comments in the margins, a graded rubric, and a paragraph of instructions on how they should improve their work.
Every essay I receive is graded with a terrible harshness. Almost no one gets an A on the first try. But all students are given a second try. I return their essays with dozens of comments in the margins, a graded rubric, and a paragraph of instructions on how they should improve their work.
In what world is this bullying?
> I return their essays with dozens of comments in the margins, a graded rubric, and a paragraph of instructions on how they should improve their work.
Has the word “bullying” lost all meaning?
> I return their essays with dozens of comments in the margins, a graded rubric, and a paragraph of instructions on how they should improve their work.
Has the word “bullying” lost all meaning?
I read that comment as a response to the teacher’s stated goal of using the first essay to establish dominance and power. Is it bullying? I don’t think so, if it is applied evenhandedly.
Some excellent essays are probably getting marked down to achieve the shock-and-awe effect, and that’s not super fair.
But as powerful people like to say to the powerless: who said life was fair?
Some excellent essays are probably getting marked down to achieve the shock-and-awe effect, and that’s not super fair.
But as powerful people like to say to the powerless: who said life was fair?
It doesn't seem to me to be about fairness or unfairness; it's teaching. Students didn't have to prepare a second draft, illuminated by the teacher's comprehensive remarks; but it would have been stupid not to seize that opportunity to learn.
He's marking the first drafts down to emphasize the importance of paying close attention to his remarks. And "paying close attention" to the teacher's remarks on an essay really means rewriting it.
These students aren't being bullied; quite the opposite, they are receiving individual care and attention from a dedicated teacher. If only all teachers handled essays in this way.
He's marking the first drafts down to emphasize the importance of paying close attention to his remarks. And "paying close attention" to the teacher's remarks on an essay really means rewriting it.
These students aren't being bullied; quite the opposite, they are receiving individual care and attention from a dedicated teacher. If only all teachers handled essays in this way.
> If only all teachers handled essays in this way.
The interesting thing to me about some of the pro- comments being made here is their bizarre stridency. Here's another from downthread:
> I agreed with everything I read and wished I'd had so much consideration, both as a student and as a teacher.
I have some definite opinions about pedagogy but the thought of educators all working precisely the same way sounds like something out of The Twilight Zone or Orwell or something.
The interesting thing to me about some of the pro- comments being made here is their bizarre stridency. Here's another from downthread:
> I agreed with everything I read and wished I'd had so much consideration, both as a student and as a teacher.
I have some definite opinions about pedagogy but the thought of educators all working precisely the same way sounds like something out of The Twilight Zone or Orwell or something.
> their bizarre stridency.
I didn't think I had been "strident", nor did I think the comment you quoted sounded strident. And I had the impression that the pro- commenters generally wished that their own teachers had worked like that; so I'm not sure where your impression of a kind of sinister sameness comes from.
I didn't think I had been "strident", nor did I think the comment you quoted sounded strident. And I had the impression that the pro- commenters generally wished that their own teachers had worked like that; so I'm not sure where your impression of a kind of sinister sameness comes from.
It seems to me like there's some distance between wishing one had experienced a certain kind of teaching and wishing only one kind of teaching existed.
> If only all teachers handled essays in this way.
> If only all teachers handled essays in this way.
Point taken!
I guess I meant I wish all essay-markers took the trouble to make constructive comments, rather than just "2/10" at the bottom. Why take care over your essay, if the marker isn't going to show any evidence of having actually read it? And if the marker doesn't read it, presumably nobody will.
I guess I meant I wish all essay-markers took the trouble to make constructive comments, rather than just "2/10" at the bottom. Why take care over your essay, if the marker isn't going to show any evidence of having actually read it? And if the marker doesn't read it, presumably nobody will.
Oh, I can agree with that for sure.
My objection is with the particulars of how the author is handling his students' first drafts, and I guess I enumerated my objections elsewhere. I agree that it's better than not doing drafts at all.
My objection is with the particulars of how the author is handling his students' first drafts, and I guess I enumerated my objections elsewhere. I agree that it's better than not doing drafts at all.
I think there’s a lot wrong with skipping the draft process and replacing it with… a graded draft, essentially. But I’m just willing to take the author at his word on the following point:
> Every essay I receive is graded with a terrible harshness.
> Every essay I receive is graded with a terrible harshness.
Pretty much every essay will have flaws, things to comment on, things to improve. Students especially are not going to write perfect essays, not when professionals have editors and they do the same thing, lol.
You can grade harshly and still be fair. The author implies that some might actually get an A on the first draft (though not many).
Is it good teaching? I have no idea. I know it’s not bullying though.
Is it good teaching? I have no idea. I know it’s not bullying though.
That’s certainly one sentence quoted from a much longer paragraph.
I don't think this bullying if he is upfront about the rubric/requirements. He isn't saying he doesn't give them an A on purpose. He says almost noone does against those requirements set out. As long as those requirements are not unreasonable.
He is also explicitly giving them instruction on how to improve as well as comments. If they follow they follow the suggestions and then get an A. That seems fair.
I don't remember my teachers ever reviewing a first or second draft for me. Just turn in an essay and get a final immutable grade.
I do have a vivid memory of getting my first A in 8th grade art class just by asking what I could improve in my drawing a couple of times before the final turn in. Apparently I never thought to apply the same process the rest of school :/
He is also explicitly giving them instruction on how to improve as well as comments. If they follow they follow the suggestions and then get an A. That seems fair.
I don't remember my teachers ever reviewing a first or second draft for me. Just turn in an essay and get a final immutable grade.
I do have a vivid memory of getting my first A in 8th grade art class just by asking what I could improve in my drawing a couple of times before the final turn in. Apparently I never thought to apply the same process the rest of school :/
They were never taught American school essay writing style before ever. And while Americans think it is the most natural thing in the world, it come across as completely artificial weird structure with no real rationale for people outside of it. Meaning, they have zero chance to get A even if he gives out super detailed instructions. Because he is asking them too much.
He is not giving them As on purpose. He made grading system that ensures it.
He is not giving them As on purpose. He made grading system that ensures it.
> Americans think it is the most natural thing in the world.
By and large, they do not. (Where did you go to high school? I'd like to send my kid there, if that's true to your experience.) Argumentative essays seemed just as "artifical [and] weird" to the vast majority of the native English-speaking American college freshmen I taught as they did to the author's Chinese students. We can speculate about the reasons for that, if we like.
The cohort who (in my experience) were best-prepared for that style of writing / thinking were German ~16-year-old ESL students coming from their gymnasia system. Those kids were a delight, and really kept me on my toes.
By and large, they do not. (Where did you go to high school? I'd like to send my kid there, if that's true to your experience.) Argumentative essays seemed just as "artifical [and] weird" to the vast majority of the native English-speaking American college freshmen I taught as they did to the author's Chinese students. We can speculate about the reasons for that, if we like.
The cohort who (in my experience) were best-prepared for that style of writing / thinking were German ~16-year-old ESL students coming from their gymnasia system. Those kids were a delight, and really kept me on my toes.
“Almost no one gets an A on the first try.”
Sounds like they could get an A if they did it well enough. He’s saying most don’t do it well enough.
Whatever it is, it’s not bullying.
Sounds like they could get an A if they did it well enough. He’s saying most don’t do it well enough.
Whatever it is, it’s not bullying.
Look at the bits just before and after what you quoted:
> That is the second key to reaching cynical teenagers: they must be treated like men and women whose decisions and opinions matter. I was eager to learn from their observations and opinions. I genuinely believe I have as much to learn from my classes as they do from me. […] Students were eager to tell me of these conclusions because they believed (rightly) that I valued their insights and experiences. […] mostly to my attitude towards my students. Taking students seriously means setting high expectations for their work. This is the harder path: requiring more of students means investing more time and effort into their growth. […the part you quoted…] This process requires double the work on my part, but it makes the students better writers. Teach things that matter. Believe your students matter. Set high standards, but invest the time to ensure your students can meet the standards you set.
I wouldn't describe the approach as “terror and bullying built into it”.
> That is the second key to reaching cynical teenagers: they must be treated like men and women whose decisions and opinions matter. I was eager to learn from their observations and opinions. I genuinely believe I have as much to learn from my classes as they do from me. […] Students were eager to tell me of these conclusions because they believed (rightly) that I valued their insights and experiences. […] mostly to my attitude towards my students. Taking students seriously means setting high expectations for their work. This is the harder path: requiring more of students means investing more time and effort into their growth. […the part you quoted…] This process requires double the work on my part, but it makes the students better writers. Teach things that matter. Believe your students matter. Set high standards, but invest the time to ensure your students can meet the standards you set.
I wouldn't describe the approach as “terror and bullying built into it”.
How is that bullying? That sounds like a pretty good process to me.
I think the word choice comes from the idea that the students get forced into taking the reviewers position.
While this is a dynamic that can happen, it is by no means how the process should play out. So if that's the perspective and if one can't see the setup as an instructor offering guidance, one better doesn't attend university at all. And if the bullying scenario happens, find another place!
I agreed with everything I read and wished I'd had so much consideration, both as a student and as a teacher.
While this is a dynamic that can happen, it is by no means how the process should play out. So if that's the perspective and if one can't see the setup as an instructor offering guidance, one better doesn't attend university at all. And if the bullying scenario happens, find another place!
I agreed with everything I read and wished I'd had so much consideration, both as a student and as a teacher.
Why would you pick the "Iliad" though?
1) The "Odyssey" is more interesting and far more often referenced in arts and culture.
2) It's not an English book so you are going to suffer from double the translation misfires (Greek -> English -> Chinese).
There are lots of choices for literature in English that are just as or even more important than the "Iliad".
1) The "Odyssey" is more interesting and far more often referenced in arts and culture.
2) It's not an English book so you are going to suffer from double the translation misfires (Greek -> English -> Chinese).
There are lots of choices for literature in English that are just as or even more important than the "Iliad".
Folks have been translating Homer for centuries, any modern translation is going to be adequate.
I agree on both counts. I could never finish the Iliad. No matter the translation, it can never overcome the catalog of horrors.
Whenever I see "scholar" in a sitename I go on alert. The About page confirms it in this case.
Whenever I see "scholar" in a sitename I go on alert. The About page confirms it in this case.
Reading articles author did not asked students to read it all. They read sections, wrote essays on topics that show up in poem etc. The poem was basis on which other stuff was taught - like American style essay writing.
Author spent roughly a year preparing the seminar.
Author spent roughly a year preparing the seminar.
[deleted]
I mean, the entire seminar is titled "War." The teacher here has a clear US conservative background, which for whatever leans jingoistic. Other assigned reading includes "Why Men Love War" from Esquire magazine, and Rupert Brooke's "The Soldier."
I might have enjoyed an English class from this teacher. They understate the work when they say "double" the work for the way they grade; I seldom had any substantive comments on papers returned to me, and rarely did I have even an inkling of why one paper would receive a better grade then another.
The most extreme example was when I got a paper back with a 56% and the only comment was "Great Job! Almost an A paper"
The most extreme example was when I got a paper back with a 56% and the only comment was "Great Job! Almost an A paper"
>As a rule Chinese students are more attentive and less rebellious than their American counterparts.
As an American who's taught both native born American students and recent Chinese immigrants, I confirm this is true, much to the embarrassment of my national pride.
As an American who's taught both native born American students and recent Chinese immigrants, I confirm this is true, much to the embarrassment of my national pride.
National pride? One could just frame this as American students teenagers being more independent-minded… and more rebellious (the last part can be both a compliment and not).
If you look at the opposite of rebellious as conformist both have negative connotations, and I think in general American culture values at least in theory rebelliousness over conformity, even if in practice there is a strong conformist push from those in charge.
Looking from outside the US and basing my opinion on news, movies and comments in forums like these, I see there is an enormous conformist push from all levels of society (school, work, religion, military, gangs, culture, politics), much more so than in most other western countries.
Granted, that could be just my impression due to prevalence of US culture on the internet and in every day life, and all countries (western and other) might have similar levels of conformist push but it is the US that prides itself on individualism so the level of conformity just stands out more.
Do you think traveling to the US to get direct personal experience, unfiltered by the media and internet, might give you a different perspective?
What makes the US seem so much more conformist to you than other western countries? I didn't think it was more conformist than countries like Spain, France, Germany, etc.
It could also be a selection thing though, you'd have to compare "typical American students in a typical American school environment" to "typical Chinese students in a typical Chinese school environment".
Still probably quite different, but maybe more similar than looking at Chinese emigrés vs typical "US average".
Still probably quite different, but maybe more similar than looking at Chinese emigrés vs typical "US average".
I'd second OP's opinion as a 1.5 Gen.
Immigrant parents (Asian, Latino, Eastern European, African) in America will push their kids harder because when you're an immigrant, a mistake like getting suspended in school or a DUI can destroy any chance at naturalization because you need to establish "Good Moral Character" [0] which is largely at the discretion of the presiding interviewer and a backlogged USCIS Immigration Judge
[0] - https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-d-chapter...
Immigrant parents (Asian, Latino, Eastern European, African) in America will push their kids harder because when you're an immigrant, a mistake like getting suspended in school or a DUI can destroy any chance at naturalization because you need to establish "Good Moral Character" [0] which is largely at the discretion of the presiding interviewer and a backlogged USCIS Immigration Judge
[0] - https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-d-chapter...
the original article is talking about native Chinese in China, though the fact that they're attending a school with an english teacher from America is also a strong filter
The article characterizes them as elite students, so you then need to compare them to elite American students. Elite as in highly performing in school and motivated.
True, the author is teaching at an elite Beijing high school. But elite American high schools are usually disproportionally populated with Asian (an very often Chinese) students.
I'm talking about lr4444lr's comment
I'd be more proud of the rebellious students. The goal is for them to think independently and be independent, free members of society. It's like teenage children - it can be a real headache for parents, but you do you really want your teenagers to be obedient and compliant?
>but you do you really want your teenagers to be obedient and compliant?
Yes... what a ridiculous rhetorical question, with all due respect.
There is a thread of democratic myth that has been abused into dust that holds that there is high virtue in being disobedient and non-compliant. But the heart of that myth is always centered in somehwat rare (in the context of today) totalitarianism or "dark age" mythological social ignorance.
When in reality the key to both learning and life success, translating to happiness, is obedience and compliance with things that are mostly good and mostly true. Whereas predators, of all kinds, often rely on peddling untruths to the reflexively disobedient.
There are exceptions, but the lesson is that they are far from the rule.
Yes... what a ridiculous rhetorical question, with all due respect.
There is a thread of democratic myth that has been abused into dust that holds that there is high virtue in being disobedient and non-compliant. But the heart of that myth is always centered in somehwat rare (in the context of today) totalitarianism or "dark age" mythological social ignorance.
When in reality the key to both learning and life success, translating to happiness, is obedience and compliance with things that are mostly good and mostly true. Whereas predators, of all kinds, often rely on peddling untruths to the reflexively disobedient.
There are exceptions, but the lesson is that they are far from the rule.
It's hard to understand why authority or oppression is somehow virtuous or trustworthy today.
First, they are human institutions and will be corrupt to varying degrees (though that degree matters greatly); teenagers should learn and all adults should know that the feet of these monuments are clay, and that we can build better - especially the next generation, with a fresh perspective, less vested interest, and more energy.
Second, what almost defines today, this moment in history, is the rise of authoritarian oppression and the embrace of it (which I believe includes the comment above, though not necessarily the commenter), and the culture of abuse of authority and brazen embrace of it - in political leaders, business leaders, etc. These things, far from being obsolete concerns, are now a cult - rather than freedom and hope for all, people embrace hate, cruelty, corruption, and dictators.
Look at our world, look what we are building, look at the catastrophe the institutions have produced and the brazen disregard shown by a generation of adults.
Finally, our world was built by people who disrepected authority; authority is those who did so and succeeded. That's where almost every democracy and all our freedoms came from.
> ridiculous ... dust
Rather than disrespecting authority, your comment disrespects your peers and try to abuse them, through contempt and ridicule, into complying with the authority. The comment sounds to me like the person who, threatened with the power of a bully, goes along with them, tries to fit into their power structure, and ingratiates themselves by attacking peers who don't conform.
First, they are human institutions and will be corrupt to varying degrees (though that degree matters greatly); teenagers should learn and all adults should know that the feet of these monuments are clay, and that we can build better - especially the next generation, with a fresh perspective, less vested interest, and more energy.
Second, what almost defines today, this moment in history, is the rise of authoritarian oppression and the embrace of it (which I believe includes the comment above, though not necessarily the commenter), and the culture of abuse of authority and brazen embrace of it - in political leaders, business leaders, etc. These things, far from being obsolete concerns, are now a cult - rather than freedom and hope for all, people embrace hate, cruelty, corruption, and dictators.
Look at our world, look what we are building, look at the catastrophe the institutions have produced and the brazen disregard shown by a generation of adults.
Finally, our world was built by people who disrepected authority; authority is those who did so and succeeded. That's where almost every democracy and all our freedoms came from.
> ridiculous ... dust
Rather than disrespecting authority, your comment disrespects your peers and try to abuse them, through contempt and ridicule, into complying with the authority. The comment sounds to me like the person who, threatened with the power of a bully, goes along with them, tries to fit into their power structure, and ingratiates themselves by attacking peers who don't conform.
Well said!
I am not sure when being "Rebellious/Undisciplined/Bad-behaviour" became equated with "Independent-minded" and thus ipso facto "better than" being "Obedient/Disciplined".
By definition, youngsters have a lot to learn which can only happen in a obedient and disciplined environment.
I am not sure when being "Rebellious/Undisciplined/Bad-behaviour" became equated with "Independent-minded" and thus ipso facto "better than" being "Obedient/Disciplined".
By definition, youngsters have a lot to learn which can only happen in a obedient and disciplined environment.
> By definition, youngsters have a lot to learn which can only happen in a obedient and disciplined environment.
By what definition?
By what definition?
> youngsters
Age and therefore lack of Knowledge/Experience.
Age and therefore lack of Knowledge/Experience.
In some places in the world, the answer is clearly yes. I don’t think filial piety has a gigantic escape clause for when the kid is a teenager.
Letting teens run wild for whatever reason (because they will be more interesting adults? because they have a right to?) is a western idea. That’s exactly how I grew up and have a lot of tales to tell, but I also underutilized my capacity for learning during that time.
Letting teens run wild for whatever reason (because they will be more interesting adults? because they have a right to?) is a western idea. That’s exactly how I grew up and have a lot of tales to tell, but I also underutilized my capacity for learning during that time.
> Letting teens run wild
> because they will be more interesting adults? because they have a right to?
That's just belittling and avoiding the serious issues. Very teenager-like! :)
First, nobody said healthy teens can't study. But it's essential they question and push back against what they study. If they don't learn that, their education has failed on a basic level - that is where all that knowledge came from; that's what will prepare them to be adults who can utilize and produce knowledge themselves, rather than relying on others. What more is the source of SV - or the entire scientific and business enterprises - than those skills.
Also, there is far more to learn than schoolwork for growing into fully self-actualized, mature, free people in a free society. Most critically, the most important knowledge is self-knowledge, and that is not learned by studying authorites, but mostly by experimenting and studying yourself.
> I also underutilized my capacity for learning during that time
None of us know what would happen on the road not taken. You wouldn't be the same person. For one thing, it's not realistic to compare anyone to some image of perfection and then say they could have done better.
> because they will be more interesting adults? because they have a right to?
That's just belittling and avoiding the serious issues. Very teenager-like! :)
First, nobody said healthy teens can't study. But it's essential they question and push back against what they study. If they don't learn that, their education has failed on a basic level - that is where all that knowledge came from; that's what will prepare them to be adults who can utilize and produce knowledge themselves, rather than relying on others. What more is the source of SV - or the entire scientific and business enterprises - than those skills.
Also, there is far more to learn than schoolwork for growing into fully self-actualized, mature, free people in a free society. Most critically, the most important knowledge is self-knowledge, and that is not learned by studying authorites, but mostly by experimenting and studying yourself.
> I also underutilized my capacity for learning during that time
None of us know what would happen on the road not taken. You wouldn't be the same person. For one thing, it's not realistic to compare anyone to some image of perfection and then say they could have done better.
I would argue that methods presented here will make learning very engaging regardless of cultural backgrounds as these learning methods value highly individual effort.
The other side of this coin is critical thinking. If you cant rebel you cant resist being fed bullshit. Which we see playing out. Without a doubt American students could be better behaved though.
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
I believe there are studies that show even East Asian origin babies are less active and more docile than white babies.
Why would you ever expect the opposite, i.e. American students of adventurous, New World colonizing and even Wild West background, to be less rebellous than Chinese students with a family history of 50 generations of tending to a rice field?
Not saying either of these options is wrong, and even hinting that the former may perform comparatively better in real life than their test scores suggest. After all, their ancestors survived.
Not saying either of these options is wrong, and even hinting that the former may perform comparatively better in real life than their test scores suggest. After all, their ancestors survived.
You picked national myth of America and compared it to a stereotype of poor Chinese person.
As in, neither is accurate characterisation of stuff that happened in the past or culture of a place right now.
As in, neither is accurate characterisation of stuff that happened in the past or culture of a place right now.
This is really reductive to the point of being actually harmful when trying to understand the culture difference.
> a family history of 50 generations of tending to a rice field?
While yes, I am sure that there are many peasant people who have a "don't rock the boat" mindset, this is totally ignorant to the fact that China in the last two centuries alone was:
Invaded by Japan, invaded by every European colonial power, had a communist revolution, underwent massive industrialization, had the cultural revolution (that sort of kills the "docile student" narrative by itself), had multiple civil wars, fought in the Korean and Vietnam wars, fought against Russia, and recently in the last 40 years has opened up to international trade and market economies.
Compare the life stories of Donald Trump and Xi Xinping. Which of the two seems more adventurous? I'm not even trying to say one culture is better or worse, I am just trying to point out that your historical synopsis is not accurate and is really oversimplifying things.
> a family history of 50 generations of tending to a rice field?
While yes, I am sure that there are many peasant people who have a "don't rock the boat" mindset, this is totally ignorant to the fact that China in the last two centuries alone was:
Invaded by Japan, invaded by every European colonial power, had a communist revolution, underwent massive industrialization, had the cultural revolution (that sort of kills the "docile student" narrative by itself), had multiple civil wars, fought in the Korean and Vietnam wars, fought against Russia, and recently in the last 40 years has opened up to international trade and market economies.
Compare the life stories of Donald Trump and Xi Xinping. Which of the two seems more adventurous? I'm not even trying to say one culture is better or worse, I am just trying to point out that your historical synopsis is not accurate and is really oversimplifying things.
The important is not what changes but what remains constant.
Really? Wouldn't a better argument be that Americans have experienced constant positive social progress and stability, which reinforces the American mindset that "change is good". Whereas China has undergone nearly two centuries of instability, reinforcing the mindset that "stability is more important than pursuit of an ideal"?
I still don't even think that this is a super useful model because it is also reductive. But my point is just that you shouldn't paint broad brush strokes with bad history to find a reason for something. It's actually counter-productive. You can find post-hoc rationalization for anything. It doesn't make you right.
I still don't even think that this is a super useful model because it is also reductive. But my point is just that you shouldn't paint broad brush strokes with bad history to find a reason for something. It's actually counter-productive. You can find post-hoc rationalization for anything. It doesn't make you right.
It is not this simple and you missed my point (I can't blame you).
It is about personal traits after all. The question is, what personal trait remains constant under the change?
As you can see from the above: Chinese and American students reacted very differently to a change (a difficult study exercise).
In principle this contradicts your claim that Americans embrace any change - not at all.
Why different groups of people react differently to the change applied to them? It can be that they have different cultural memory about what is the outcome of a personal stand.
It is about personal traits after all. The question is, what personal trait remains constant under the change?
As you can see from the above: Chinese and American students reacted very differently to a change (a difficult study exercise).
In principle this contradicts your claim that Americans embrace any change - not at all.
Why different groups of people react differently to the change applied to them? It can be that they have different cultural memory about what is the outcome of a personal stand.
I get your point, but your entire point is just built on speculation.
> As you can see from the above: Chinese and American students reacted very differently to a change (a difficult study exercise).
This is one framing. Another framing is that they have deference to authority. My hypothesis from the last post is not testable, it's just a narrative. It's not true. That was my point. You can frame history in whatever narrative makes you feel good but it's not scientific or true.
> Why different groups of people react differently to the change applied to them? It can be that they have different cultural memory about what is the outcome of a personal stand.
Your average Chinese student is more likely to have immediate family members who participated in revolutionary activity than just "being rice farmers". Whereas your average American is not very likely to have ancestors who participated in revolutionary activity (much less cowboys or adventurers). I am trying to illustrate that your initial assumption (Americans are always pushing boundaries, and the Chinese just live quiet lives) is totally inaccurate when taking into account which of the two countries has had more instability over the last two centuries. So in the "cultural memory" wouldn't Americans be the ones who are used to peaceful and stable lives?
Your point fails on another level, which is that both the rice farmer and cowboy example are stereotypes that serve to find an example without any serious analysis. It's a nice hand-wavy explanation that doesn't pass a quick smell test an also doesn't encourage the people who buy into the explanation to investigate any further.
I am saying that just because this explanation makes sense to you doesn't mean that it is correct.
> As you can see from the above: Chinese and American students reacted very differently to a change (a difficult study exercise).
This is one framing. Another framing is that they have deference to authority. My hypothesis from the last post is not testable, it's just a narrative. It's not true. That was my point. You can frame history in whatever narrative makes you feel good but it's not scientific or true.
> Why different groups of people react differently to the change applied to them? It can be that they have different cultural memory about what is the outcome of a personal stand.
Your average Chinese student is more likely to have immediate family members who participated in revolutionary activity than just "being rice farmers". Whereas your average American is not very likely to have ancestors who participated in revolutionary activity (much less cowboys or adventurers). I am trying to illustrate that your initial assumption (Americans are always pushing boundaries, and the Chinese just live quiet lives) is totally inaccurate when taking into account which of the two countries has had more instability over the last two centuries. So in the "cultural memory" wouldn't Americans be the ones who are used to peaceful and stable lives?
Your point fails on another level, which is that both the rice farmer and cowboy example are stereotypes that serve to find an example without any serious analysis. It's a nice hand-wavy explanation that doesn't pass a quick smell test an also doesn't encourage the people who buy into the explanation to investigate any further.
I am saying that just because this explanation makes sense to you doesn't mean that it is correct.
> Your average Chinese student is more likely to have immediate family members who participated in revolutionary activity than just "being rice farmers"
I think you are misinterpreting the situation.
I didn't come up with this rice farmer and cowboy example and I do not advocate for it as it is a complete nonsense. Cowboys aka cow herders were just one very limited part of the American society, it misses everybody else who were free in their lives.
Chinese communist regime (as it has been with all communist regimes) first deceived the population with good sounding promises and then created another oppressive regime. Chinese peasants didn't push personal boundaries, it was a collective action where they stepped right into one of the biggest blunders of the century that led to the death of tens of millions people (close to 100 million). "Cultural" revolution displayed to them that they have to learn to walk on the rope or else. They went from one serfdom right into another one.
What you have constructed here is called a straw man argument.
I think you are misinterpreting the situation.
I didn't come up with this rice farmer and cowboy example and I do not advocate for it as it is a complete nonsense. Cowboys aka cow herders were just one very limited part of the American society, it misses everybody else who were free in their lives.
Chinese communist regime (as it has been with all communist regimes) first deceived the population with good sounding promises and then created another oppressive regime. Chinese peasants didn't push personal boundaries, it was a collective action where they stepped right into one of the biggest blunders of the century that led to the death of tens of millions people (close to 100 million). "Cultural" revolution displayed to them that they have to learn to walk on the rope or else. They went from one serfdom right into another one.
What you have constructed here is called a straw man argument.
> I didn't come up with this rice farmer and cowboy example and I do not advocate for it as it is a complete nonsense
Sorry my bad, I thought you were the same person as the original commenter I was replying to.
Sorry my bad, I thought you were the same person as the original commenter I was replying to.
I'm the original one and I agree with the previous comment wholeheartedly.
Revolution is when you are told you have much meaner boss from now on, and one who requires active loyalty signalling. So you comply. Or remove yourself from the gene pool.
Revolution is when you are told you have much meaner boss from now on, and one who requires active loyalty signalling. So you comply. Or remove yourself from the gene pool.
I grew up in a country that defines itself as opposition to another (“the enemy”, “the imperialism”), and everything else, including the lack of everything and the long blackouts, goes by undiscussed. Our Literature professor was a bright light in that world. The Iliad was the first book we read that was about what was it like to be a person in a distant time and a distant land. It was an escape and a return journey to our Mediterranean roots. Back then, I was as much of an avid reader as I’m now, but I couldn’t have made any tails of the Iliad without the help of our teacher. May his bright soul live forever in his students.
“Teach things that matter. Believe your students matter. Set high standards, but invest the time to ensure your students can meet the standards you set.”
Replace teaching with working on, and students with co-workers, and you have the basis for a functional, high-performance work culture.
Replace teaching with working on, and students with co-workers, and you have the basis for a functional, high-performance work culture.
I’ll take this moment to plug “The War Nerd Iliad”[1] which is my particular favorite adaptation of the Iliad. I took Classics in high school and we covered it, but I never really engaged with it until I read this. It may not be for everyone, but if you’ve found yourself put off by poetic translation of a poem that doesn’t really work in English, you’ll find this more accessible and probably enjoyable.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/34381315
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/34381315
Back when I was a private tutor, a lot of the "lit" business required a steady hand. Shakespeare and most other plays, I would rope a nearby adult into the business and we would do everything out loud. I think comprehension for plays is much easier when you read out the parts. A few "line readings," (in the Hollywood sense) makes the antique verbiage snap into place. A slow, measured, "But I do bite my thumb ... sir" and a sideways glance, with the lightest of smirks and everything makes sense to them.
> Because these students were attached to the most competitive international school in Beijing, the majority of my students were very bright and very motivated. [..] At a less selective school this curriculum may be a harder sell.
I think this kind of framing often mistakes nurture for nature in ways that can lead to bad thinking: that they were attached to "the most competitive international school" means that these students likely already benefited heavily from support unavailable to other students in order to make it through the filters. The filters don't test for individual aptitude in a vaccuum, they test for the outcomes of prior circumstances. The Chinese education system isn't exactly known for being chill and relaxed to begin with.
In other words: I think by looking at this in terms of individual students rather than the systems which brought them forth, this reads like "at other schools the students aren't good enough to pass a course like this" rather than "at other schools the students have not been given the prerequisites to pass a course like this". By only looking at the school as better or worse than other schools it ignores what allowed those students to have those prerequisites and fails to identify what they are, which could have allowed for insights on what needs to be taught as a primer before such a class could be taught to other students.
I think this kind of framing often mistakes nurture for nature in ways that can lead to bad thinking: that they were attached to "the most competitive international school" means that these students likely already benefited heavily from support unavailable to other students in order to make it through the filters. The filters don't test for individual aptitude in a vaccuum, they test for the outcomes of prior circumstances. The Chinese education system isn't exactly known for being chill and relaxed to begin with.
In other words: I think by looking at this in terms of individual students rather than the systems which brought them forth, this reads like "at other schools the students aren't good enough to pass a course like this" rather than "at other schools the students have not been given the prerequisites to pass a course like this". By only looking at the school as better or worse than other schools it ignores what allowed those students to have those prerequisites and fails to identify what they are, which could have allowed for insights on what needs to be taught as a primer before such a class could be taught to other students.
What would be the Chinese equivalent of the illiad be? (well equivalents, there are going to be more than one)
Romance of the Three Kingdoms
It's about a multi-decade civil war almost 2 thousand years ago & is the oldest of their classic novels and the characters are all household names.
And many similar character types ... Diaochan <> Hellen, Lu Bu <> Achilles, Zhuge Liang <> Odysseus etc.
It's about a multi-decade civil war almost 2 thousand years ago & is the oldest of their classic novels and the characters are all household names.
And many similar character types ... Diaochan <> Hellen, Lu Bu <> Achilles, Zhuge Liang <> Odysseus etc.
It's worth noting that while Romance of the Three Kingdoms is set 2000 years ago, it was written in the 14th century, so the context is quite different to the Iliad.
There is some surviving poetry from the Zhou Dynasty, which is contemporary with classical Greece, but I don't think any of it is epics.
There is some surviving poetry from the Zhou Dynasty, which is contemporary with classical Greece, but I don't think any of it is epics.
I think there's a Total War (video game) series based on the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. I can't say how accurately it sticks to the story, as I've never read the Romance nor played the games [1], but it might be worth looking into if you're into video games.
[1] I simply watched an avid Three Kingdoms fan playing the campaign on YouTube a few years ago as some background noise.
[1] I simply watched an avid Three Kingdoms fan playing the campaign on YouTube a few years ago as some background noise.
There is but it's just the setting/characters it doesn't attempt to tell the story. In the same way a game of Diplomacy isn't a retelling of WW1.
> almost 2 thousand years ago & is the oldest of their classic novels
Nah, it was written in 14th century. It's one of the earlist novels in "vernacular Mandarin" though.
Nah, it was written in 14th century. It's one of the earlist novels in "vernacular Mandarin" though.
It's set after the fall of the Han Dynasty almost 2k years ago. It wasn't written until the 14th century & but is the oldest of the "classic Chinese novels" (Journey to the west, Water Margin, Red Chamber) [1]. There are many older classical works like the I Ching or Analects but they aren't "novels"
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Chinese_Novels
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Chinese_Novels
Best translation?
Chinese here, I would highly recommend the TV series made by CCTV in 1994[1]. There's an unofficial English translated subtitle out there[2]. Cried every time I watched it.
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdom... [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Nzg2uzV03s
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdom... [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Nzg2uzV03s
Did you like it better than the 2010 version? That's the one I'm familiar with.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms_(TV_series)
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms_(TV_series)
I think the 1994 version is WAY MUCH better, it's an epic. On Douban (Chinese IMDb), the 2010 version got 7.9, but the 1994 version got 9.6 out of 10.
The anime version of Journey to the West is decent (but it takes great liberties with the plot and is heavily abridged)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball
How accurate is it to frame Dragonball this way. Im not that knowledgeable about either Dragonball nor journey to the West but it seems like a massive stretch.
It grew into it's own thing but...
"Toriyama loosely modeled the plot and characters of Dragon Ball on the classic Chinese novel Journey to the West,[16][15] with Goku being Sun Wukong ("Son Goku" in Japanese), Bulma as Tang Sanzang, Oolong as Zhu Bajie, and Yamcha being Sha Wujing" [1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball
"Toriyama loosely modeled the plot and characters of Dragon Ball on the classic Chinese novel Journey to the West,[16][15] with Goku being Sun Wukong ("Son Goku" in Japanese), Bulma as Tang Sanzang, Oolong as Zhu Bajie, and Yamcha being Sha Wujing" [1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball
Read both. I belive they're totally different.
Moss Roberts, and it's not even a question.
It's very dense though and there's like a billion names to keep track of, I only made it through the first ~1/3 of the first volume (out of 4) before I had to give up. I want to revisit one day but I would need some sort of reading guide to follow along with that lets me look up all the character names and who is on which side etc.
It's very dense though and there's like a billion names to keep track of, I only made it through the first ~1/3 of the first volume (out of 4) before I had to give up. I want to revisit one day but I would need some sort of reading guide to follow along with that lets me look up all the character names and who is on which side etc.
I sometimes find it difficult to keep track of all the names in a science fiction book when they're in some invented language (wads Acenta the good one, or Arinca?). It's easy when they have English or English-ish names.
The same happens when reading a book with Chinese names.
An ebook that coloured the names according to their side might help.
The same happens when reading a book with Chinese names.
An ebook that coloured the names according to their side might help.
It also doesn't help that each character has two names, like Liu Bei is both Liu Bei & Xuande, and the two names are used nearly interchangeably for most characters. And the text doesn't handhold you with dialogue & other continuity clues to remind you of relationships (e.g. "Good morning," said Alice. Bob looked up as his daughter entered the room. - without breaking the flow of the text this reminds you of the relationship between Alice & Bob).
Moss Roberts' unabridged version is the one you want.
Journey to the west.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_to_the_West
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_to_the_West
Isn't that the Chinese equivalent of the Odyssey?
I was looking for this comment just to give it a +1. Journey to the West has had a massive cultural impact and it's delightful to see where a lot of those memes originated. Fans of modern fantasy will feel right at home.
I don't think there is anything close to epic poems for Han Chinese. Though China government claims Gesar of Tibet, Jangar of Mongol and Manas of Kyrgyz, are the three epic poems of China.
True, but some of the commentaries to the Spring and Autumn Annals are written in a highly refined style that one could describe as akin to poetry, especially the Zuo Zhuan. Of course this is better described as history rather than epic, but the two genres share similar goals especially for the period.
The literary style of Zuo Zhuan can be described as highly refined if you wish, but not quite "poetic". It's basically a very succinct style of old Chinese. And it reads more like a diary than an epic story.
I'd say Shiji feels more similar to an epic, at least a couple stories in it has an air of exaggeration :D
I'd say Shiji feels more similar to an epic, at least a couple stories in it has an air of exaggeration :D
Water Margin? Journey West? Romance of the Three Kingdoms?
And Dream of the Red Chamber to round up the four great Chinese classical novels
And to round off the six most beloved, The Plum in the Golden Vase (Jin Ping Mei), and The Scholars (AKA Unofficial History of the Scholars).
Can you recommend any good one-volume translations of those?
Nope! I have to profess, as an American, my primary exposure to the three aforementioned novels has been filtered through Japanese adaptions (e.g. the Romance of the Three Kingdoms videogames, Suikoden, Dragon Ball, Dynasty Warriors, etc.). I think it would be great for China to take a stab at adapting the stories for an international audience as a game/movie/TV series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_of_Poetry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Documents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Rites
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_and_Autumn_Annals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuo_Zhuan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_of_the_Grand_Historian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Documents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Rites
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_and_Autumn_Annals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuo_Zhuan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_of_the_Grand_Historian
Dunno, but Monkey ('Journey to the West') by Wu Cheng'en was a great book as I remember. Wish I had time to read it again.
That baffles me. Why do you think you do not have the time? Certainly, if reading the book again is important enough for you, you could lower the priority of some other occupation/task/...?
There are many books I want to read, and even more things I want to do. Then there are things I need to do like pay the rent.
[deleted]
BTW, it's a pity people don't study Old Testament as a literary work. I read it at 15 as an atheistic teenager and was totally captivated by the epic mainline story with numerous fascinating side stories. It's at least on par with Iliad and Odissey in that aspect.
It's different if it's been droned at you for as long as you can remember though.
Of course, but not at Chinese students:)
You need to skip Book of Numbers, though.
At least. There is a lot of the Old Testament that is literally just lists of things. Leviticus is another obvious one or the "begats" in Exodus. It's largely impossible because of the Old Testament's status as a holy text but I'd really love to see a more condensed version of it that takes it purely as an epic and not a part of existing religious traditions. I suppose that would be more likely to come out of a culture that is not so closely tied to Christianity though and I fear it might lose a lot in the double process of translation required to make it approachable to a Westerner like me.
Scholar’s Stage is an internet treasure.
This story makes me want to reread a classic. It's amazing how motivating a good teacher can be!
Anthropologist and political scientist Alan McFarlane recorded many of
his lectures while visiting China [0]. I really enjoyed some of them I
found online, but it raised a hard question for me; outside of SOAS or
Harvard, where are the visiting professors from China teaching
Westerners some of the great stories and value from 5000 years of
Chinese history (the stuff the CCP now wants to bury).
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54229792-understanding-t...
(sorry for low quality link, but the book is a good summary )
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54229792-understanding-t...
(sorry for low quality link, but the book is a good summary )
> where are the visiting professors from China teaching Westerners some of the great stories and value from 5000 years of Chinese history
A great question, and I would love to take a class - even online - from a top Chinese professor on leading Chinese texts.
I imagine part of the answer is that the reputations of and demand for American universities have been far beyond Chinese universities, though recently that's changing some. (That's not a criticism of people in China - it takes awhile to build those institutions and they are already moving pretty fast.)
A great question, and I would love to take a class - even online - from a top Chinese professor on leading Chinese texts.
I imagine part of the answer is that the reputations of and demand for American universities have been far beyond Chinese universities, though recently that's changing some. (That's not a criticism of people in China - it takes awhile to build those institutions and they are already moving pretty fast.)
I suspect there's also the language barrier... If an institution in China invites a western scholar to teach the Iliad for example, they wouldn't insist the person teach it in Chinese.
But I presume, when you said you wanted to take a class from a top Chinese professor on leading Chinese texts, that you would want English instruction, and that you'd prefer the material be translated from Classical Chinese to English? (Just knowing Mandarin isn't quite enough)
But then, it's really hard to translate Classical Chinese to English. Even the longer important texts haven't been fully translated, eg. 史記 ("Records of the Grand Historian", which has kind of a similar standing as the Iliad in the West) is only partially translated AFAICT.
Written Chinese is admittedly quite hard to learn given that you have to recognize the characters etc. Classical Chinese is even harder since there's nobody you can converse with.
But if you know Mandarin, there's probably a huge amount of high quality stuff you can find online that satisfies what you want.
But I presume, when you said you wanted to take a class from a top Chinese professor on leading Chinese texts, that you would want English instruction, and that you'd prefer the material be translated from Classical Chinese to English? (Just knowing Mandarin isn't quite enough)
But then, it's really hard to translate Classical Chinese to English. Even the longer important texts haven't been fully translated, eg. 史記 ("Records of the Grand Historian", which has kind of a similar standing as the Iliad in the West) is only partially translated AFAICT.
Written Chinese is admittedly quite hard to learn given that you have to recognize the characters etc. Classical Chinese is even harder since there's nobody you can converse with.
But if you know Mandarin, there's probably a huge amount of high quality stuff you can find online that satisfies what you want.
You're absolutely right. That's the answer.
I'm probably too old to learn languages of many of the cultures that interest me, much to my disadvantage.
So what we get, as the sibling comment said, is an interpreted and outdated account through "liberal arts".
I'm probably too old to learn languages of many of the cultures that interest me, much to my disadvantage.
So what we get, as the sibling comment said, is an interpreted and outdated account through "liberal arts".
Speaking generally: learning those things is often the best thing you can do for your brain, and then you won't be so old anymore.
I think people overestimate the effect of age on learning. Children spend years becoming fluent in their native language, and with little focus or study of it. I could learn a language faster. (Not an apples-apples comparison, obviously, because children's brains and behavior are so much different.)
I think people overestimate the effect of age on learning. Children spend years becoming fluent in their native language, and with little focus or study of it. I could learn a language faster. (Not an apples-apples comparison, obviously, because children's brains and behavior are so much different.)
> then you won't be so old anymore.
haha, thanks for the encouragement. Project for my 6th decade Russian or Chinese,, still not sure :)
haha, thanks for the encouragement. Project for my 6th decade Russian or Chinese,, still not sure :)
I thought one possibility might be SOAS, the School of Oriental and African Studies, part of the University of London.
They have a visiting professor from Guizhou University, but his interest is politics: https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/news/soas-china-institute-welco...
Their reader in modern Chinese culture and language is from China: https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/xiaoning-lu
https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/institutes-and-regional-centres...
They have a visiting professor from Guizhou University, but his interest is politics: https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/news/soas-china-institute-welco...
Their reader in modern Chinese culture and language is from China: https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/xiaoning-lu
https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/institutes-and-regional-centres...
Thank you!
The liberal arts.
We learned Confucius, Mencius, Daosim, legalism, the dynasties, bits of the Chinese language etc. I still remember all the dynasties in order.
Of course that didn’t really pay the bills so I redid a bachelors in STEM. But its pretty common in many liberal arts curriculums. Taught right alongside the classics.
We learned Confucius, Mencius, Daosim, legalism, the dynasties, bits of the Chinese language etc. I still remember all the dynasties in order.
Of course that didn’t really pay the bills so I redid a bachelors in STEM. But its pretty common in many liberal arts curriculums. Taught right alongside the classics.
An occidental account, tainted by orientalism and packaged for, as you
say, liberal arts students.
My point was to the asymmetry of authentic visiting pedagogy. In other words, for the past 20 or 30 years Chinese universities have been enthusiastic and open to first hand accounts of western culture, ancient and modern. They've been keen to take the best of what we have and learn from it. On our side we have a cannon prepared for the most-part before 1900 and taught by aging white professors.
McFarlane seems unusual, albeit that he is indeed the archetypal western Oxford don.
It would be nice to avoid the implication of a "successful and scientific" Western cannon versus "failed" and primitive alternatives that don't pay bills. FWIW, I like to assume, in all discussions of interest, that the bills have been paid. Bill paying is, after all rather dull.
On the other hand I casually wondered on Friday, amidst all the fireworks and what with it being a dragon new year, what we're missing about a problem that we seem to be struggling with - namely how a society, despite huge technological change and diversity, remains relatively stable for thousands of years.
I would love to watch a YouTube video lecture series on something like that, from the horse's mouth as it were, but I suspect all the authentic professors who would have taught us were rounded up or starved in some Great Leap Backwards.
My point was to the asymmetry of authentic visiting pedagogy. In other words, for the past 20 or 30 years Chinese universities have been enthusiastic and open to first hand accounts of western culture, ancient and modern. They've been keen to take the best of what we have and learn from it. On our side we have a cannon prepared for the most-part before 1900 and taught by aging white professors.
McFarlane seems unusual, albeit that he is indeed the archetypal western Oxford don.
It would be nice to avoid the implication of a "successful and scientific" Western cannon versus "failed" and primitive alternatives that don't pay bills. FWIW, I like to assume, in all discussions of interest, that the bills have been paid. Bill paying is, after all rather dull.
On the other hand I casually wondered on Friday, amidst all the fireworks and what with it being a dragon new year, what we're missing about a problem that we seem to be struggling with - namely how a society, despite huge technological change and diversity, remains relatively stable for thousands of years.
I would love to watch a YouTube video lecture series on something like that, from the horse's mouth as it were, but I suspect all the authentic professors who would have taught us were rounded up or starved in some Great Leap Backwards.
> namely how a society, despite huge technological change and diversity, remains relatively stable for thousands of years
Most people in the west wouldn't want to hear the solution: value the collective over the individual, install benevolent authority figures empowered to make the final decision so that minor disputes don't get out of control (i.e. "authoritarianism"), ensure everyone is incentivized to perform their roles, and discourage troublemakers.
> suspect all the authentic professors who would have taught us were rounded up or starved in some Great Leap Backwards
The sad thing is that the Chinese tradition didn't just get wrecked during the Mao era. It started much earlier, though Mao probably handed them the nail in the coffin. In the early 20th century when the Qing dynasty collapsed, the prevailing theory among Chinese intellectuals was that China was weak because the Chinese cultural/intellectual tradition was inferior to that of the West, so to make the nation strong, everyone should just adopt Western thought instead. Within a decade or two the old system of learning was abandoned, and then there were decades of war and strife in China. This is one of the various reasons communism took a hold in China -- back then in the early 20th century, communism seemed like a progressive(?) "western" idea, and it sounded like a great way to run a nation.
By the time of the "Great Leap" and the "Cultural Revolution", there wasn't that much left of traditional Chinese thought to destroy. Some prominent academics went to Taiwan or Hong Kong, but if you ask me, they were faint echos of what the classical Chinese thought had to offer.
If you actually wanted to "hear from the horse's mouth", you might have to go back a couple hundred years.
Most people in the west wouldn't want to hear the solution: value the collective over the individual, install benevolent authority figures empowered to make the final decision so that minor disputes don't get out of control (i.e. "authoritarianism"), ensure everyone is incentivized to perform their roles, and discourage troublemakers.
> suspect all the authentic professors who would have taught us were rounded up or starved in some Great Leap Backwards
The sad thing is that the Chinese tradition didn't just get wrecked during the Mao era. It started much earlier, though Mao probably handed them the nail in the coffin. In the early 20th century when the Qing dynasty collapsed, the prevailing theory among Chinese intellectuals was that China was weak because the Chinese cultural/intellectual tradition was inferior to that of the West, so to make the nation strong, everyone should just adopt Western thought instead. Within a decade or two the old system of learning was abandoned, and then there were decades of war and strife in China. This is one of the various reasons communism took a hold in China -- back then in the early 20th century, communism seemed like a progressive(?) "western" idea, and it sounded like a great way to run a nation.
By the time of the "Great Leap" and the "Cultural Revolution", there wasn't that much left of traditional Chinese thought to destroy. Some prominent academics went to Taiwan or Hong Kong, but if you ask me, they were faint echos of what the classical Chinese thought had to offer.
If you actually wanted to "hear from the horse's mouth", you might have to go back a couple hundred years.
Thanks for these thoughts. One point of departure is that our western
concept of authoritarian is incompatible with benevolence. The rest,
as you say is uncomfortable for many of us to contemplate as
necessary.
Authoritarianism is definitely "compatible" with benevolence at least on some levels.
China had always been a large empire, so the rulers did not rule directly. To the rulers at the very top, their interests aligned with the peasants in that both wanted stability, and given that China was such a vast empire, stability was more important to the rulers than squeezing every drop of excess productivity from the peasants.
So at least for the rulers at the very top, especially those who became emperor due to being the son of the previous one, their concerns were how to ensure the middle tier officials, who actually ran the day to day affairs, administered their lands fairly without corruption.
So basically they invented a system of "scholar-officials" where education consisted of brainwashing aspiring officials about the virtues of "filial piety" and applying concepts of parenthood in governance. "Love the peasants as if they were your children", and "be loyal to the ruler as you would to your parents". This might sound hypocritical to the cynics in modern society, but back then it was not just rhetoric, they were absolutely expected to fully believe in it, because it was intentional brainwashing of the "scholar-official" class by the top-tier ruling elite.
So basically that's where the "benevolence" comes from. It's not that the rulers at the top are benevolent per se, but that their interests generally don't come from squeezing the last drop of productivity from peasants for short term gain, but rather their main risk is corrupted middle/lower tier officials abusing their power, so they install systems to ensure the administrators are "benevolent" as far as possible.
I'm not saying it's a great system, and I don't think it can or should be replicated outside of China, I'm just trying to describe, as a historical fact, how the Chinese empires were run (ideologically speaking).
China had always been a large empire, so the rulers did not rule directly. To the rulers at the very top, their interests aligned with the peasants in that both wanted stability, and given that China was such a vast empire, stability was more important to the rulers than squeezing every drop of excess productivity from the peasants.
So at least for the rulers at the very top, especially those who became emperor due to being the son of the previous one, their concerns were how to ensure the middle tier officials, who actually ran the day to day affairs, administered their lands fairly without corruption.
So basically they invented a system of "scholar-officials" where education consisted of brainwashing aspiring officials about the virtues of "filial piety" and applying concepts of parenthood in governance. "Love the peasants as if they were your children", and "be loyal to the ruler as you would to your parents". This might sound hypocritical to the cynics in modern society, but back then it was not just rhetoric, they were absolutely expected to fully believe in it, because it was intentional brainwashing of the "scholar-official" class by the top-tier ruling elite.
So basically that's where the "benevolence" comes from. It's not that the rulers at the top are benevolent per se, but that their interests generally don't come from squeezing the last drop of productivity from peasants for short term gain, but rather their main risk is corrupted middle/lower tier officials abusing their power, so they install systems to ensure the administrators are "benevolent" as far as possible.
I'm not saying it's a great system, and I don't think it can or should be replicated outside of China, I'm just trying to describe, as a historical fact, how the Chinese empires were run (ideologically speaking).
I sometimes pick up criticism for my belief in positive influence.
Somewhere in my world as a teacher is line between heartfelt
benevolence and the accusation that all is manipulation and only
serves the extant ruling classes. Somewhere in the middle is a truth.
My theory is that in the West we've forgotten the real meaning of authority, with the same root as author/writer/architect. We've confused it with entitled power.
Anyway, thanks indeed for a thoughtful explanation. I'll avoid my immediate instinct to connect it to Plato or other structural ideas I've been educated (brainwashed) with :), and give it some serious thought.
My theory is that in the West we've forgotten the real meaning of authority, with the same root as author/writer/architect. We've confused it with entitled power.
Anyway, thanks indeed for a thoughtful explanation. I'll avoid my immediate instinct to connect it to Plato or other structural ideas I've been educated (brainwashed) with :), and give it some serious thought.
I would be very interested in the syllabus for the living well and the war classes. As an expat providing additional education to a group of youngsters, I have implemented similar classes - but as an amateur instructor, I’m sure yours would be better and more effective.
This guy seems to be an amazing teacher. He's gone way beyond the call of duty in the effort he's put into course-prep; what an inspirational seminar.
The links to the slides (1drv.ms) don't seem to be working for me. It would be great to be able to see these.
Odyssey is a better and more relatable story
They are... different stories. The course invited the students to imagine when the Greeks were so obsessed with honor (just as we might be, say, so obsessed with riches), and how it nevertheless manifests in places in modern society. There is a value to that exercise.
Also likely because it might have been one of few books accepted for a standard qualification.
Also likely because it might have been one of few books accepted for a standard qualification.
Didn't have time to read it but listened via LibriVox. It's a story of a violent age where thuggery ruled. Women were at the mercy of men (E.g. Penelope having to just about control a bunch of 'suitors').
I can't find it at the moment but IIRC Odysseus and his men put in at a port at a village, put all the men there to the sword and taje the women for slaves, sex and bounty. You get the picture. Scratch the surface and it gets ugly.
(Fascinating read nonetheless)
I can't find it at the moment but IIRC Odysseus and his men put in at a port at a village, put all the men there to the sword and taje the women for slaves, sex and bounty. You get the picture. Scratch the surface and it gets ugly.
(Fascinating read nonetheless)
For sure. People talk about killing and enslaving a village super casually, like they don't consider it a moral question at all.
(2021)
you had me until OneDrive...
Communist youth anyway. There is no chinese.
Deprogramming CCP bullshit, one class at a time.
Der_Einzige(4)
I grew up in Greece and we were taught the Iliad and the Odyssey at school. I didn't find them daunting. I liked reading them both, despite being extremely annoyed at the translation into Demotic Greek - a made-up, wooden language that nobody has ever spoken, nor will. I also couldn't stand the way the epics were taught, by literary "analysis" that bored every child out of their head.
But I liked the Iliad because it was basically more of the epic battles in the songs and movies I liked at the time: I listented to a lot of epic Metal and Connan the Barbarian was my favourite movie (with a soundtrack by Basil Poledouris that could easily have been written for the Iliad). And I liked the Odyssey because it was like the fantasy books I read and the games I played: a big adventure, with many monsters encountered along the way where the hero lost companions, rather than Hit Points, I guess.
All this came natural to me. I needed no "help to get there". I probably very much didn't get to any place a literature professor would want me to get. I decided that Achilles is a bloodthirsty assshole and fuck him and his μήνις, whereas Odysseus was a smart guy, an engineer, but one with a heart who guided him home, one of my childhood heroes [1].
But I think the ancient bards [2] would have been happy. They would have found the literary analysis boring and preferred the spontaneous enjoyment of a young child to a thousand eloquent analyses about the cultural value of their epics. What cultural value does an epic have, with monsters and warriors, if it can't get a teenager to be interested in it?
____________
[1] Together with Socrates and, er, Alexander. The Great - great butcher. What was I thinking?
[2] Yeah, I mean the people we collectively call "Homer".