melonhead, on 29 April 2015 - 08:12 AM, said:
Grief, on 28 April 2015 - 06:50 PM, said:
melonhead, on 28 April 2015 - 02:38 AM, said:
What's so bad about that? Just not an Austen fan? It's short and pretty readable, quite a good choice compared to something like Dickens or Orwell imo. Like all books with satirical elements it's more enjoyable if you've read the books it's satirising though, so it's a bit of an odd choice in that regard.
Just not much of an Austen fan. Never have been really. Its not too bad a read, as you said it is quite short, but its just got me pissed because it has interrupted another book I was reading. Not a fan of Orwell? I love his work.
we are paying a lot of attention to the fact that it is satirical in the lectures actually
Yeah, I can see that lectures would focus on the satire since it's such a main part of the book, but in terms of enjoying it I think it's hard to replace actually having read the works in question. In general it makes teaching satire a bit hard, because it can be a bit like explaining the joke instead of people organically finding it.
I'm a big fan of Orwell's essays and journalism but not so much his fiction -- and let's face it, if they're teaching Orwell, there's a 95% it's one of two books. Pretty much whatever they teach, some people are going to just not be a fan of it; the reason I think Orwell isn't great to teach is because 1984 is long pretty heavy reading (so it sucks badly for the people who just don't like Orwell) and while Animal Farm is shorter and punchier, it's not great for teaching because of how heavy handed it is (which it's meant to be -- it's not like he's going for subtlety). Similarly Dickens -- it's not necessarily that I'm just not a fan, so much as the Dickens they choose to teach is almost invariably very long, and he's not the quickest read, so it's awful for anyone who isn't a fan.