4 ms·

The Poison Fish (1970)

30 points by apsec112 9y ago

ourmandave 9y ago
I saw the year and thought this was going to be related to Kentucky Fried Movie's High Adventure segment about the poisonous fish. https://youtu.be/0dpkbHmncOA?t=52s https://youtu.be/0dpkbHmncOA?t=52s
nilved 9y ago
About 1% of this is readable to me, can someone elucidate?
- codefined 9y ago
  It seems very metaphorical, so I might have not gotten the correct meaning either, however I believe it's talking about people making sentences more complex for no reason. English teachers consider writing to be something that needs to flow and be emotive, but for the vast majority of tasks it should simply be an efficient way of conveying some piece of information. Basically, students are optimising their writing for teachers approval, which isn't useful for the vast majority of real life, like the example of asking for directions; "Will you show me the most effective way to the bus stop?" vs. "How do I get to the bus stop?"
  - ams6110 9y ago
    My 10th grade English teacher was a big proponent of Strunk and White's Elements of Style. He encouraged and rewarded straightforward writing. He was one of the top two or three teachers that I ever had.
- ianbicking 9y ago
  Students are taught to write in a special way, using lots of fancy words; those words are seen as having some special value in and of themselves, even though the words do not contribute to the writer's self-expression. The author calls this kind of writing Engfish. To make it worse, all the teachers (having previously been good students) use these same words, and so the students naturally try to mimic the teachers. (Personal observation: science writing is like this x100, packed to the gills with unnecessary words.) Further, the author contends the problem isn't just too much complexity, but that mimicking this form distracts from the important pursuits in writing: telling a story, expressing your own unique experience, writing something memorable and enjoyable. A phrase that stuck out to me was: "Most English teachers have been trained to correct students' writing, not to read it" – which is challenging, because to read the writing you have to engage with the content not just the form, and then having engaged with the content you can critique the form now that you have some idea what the writer is trying to say. The reading can't be rote if the writing isn't to be rote, but try that when you have a stack of poorly written stuff made by kids. It's also challenging because the writer doesn't necessarily have anything to say when the writing is assigned, so you might search for something that isn't there.
stagbeetle 9y ago
The author is complaining that formal education is strangling the soul of beautiful English to death. There's some truth to this, although his protests are misaligned. Regimented English classes are not the proper breeding grounds for writing with individualistic expression, they are simply to teach students how to communicate eloquently. Essays and research papers are meant only to communicate and persuade, not enrich and entertain, as one commenter has implied. If one wishes to dine with Twain and Bonte, they can do so in the myriad of creative writing courses available to them. But there is simply no practical use in the idealistic battle between creatives and the man, the corporates, the zombies here. It's a noble pursuit and should flourish, but it's barking up the wrong tree.

30 points by apsec112 9y ago

I saw the year and thought this was going to be related to Kentucky Fried Movie's High Adventure segment about the poisonous fish. https://youtu.be/0dpkbHmncOA?t=52s https://youtu.be/0dpkbHmncOA?t=52s

nilved 9y ago

About 1% of this is readable to me, can someone elucidate?

codefined 9y ago
It seems very metaphorical, so I might have not gotten the correct meaning either, however I believe it's talking about people making sentences more complex for no reason. English teachers consider writing to be something that needs to flow and be emotive, but for the vast majority of tasks it should simply be an efficient way of conveying some piece of information. Basically, students are optimising their writing for teachers approval, which isn't useful for the vast majority of real life, like the example of asking for directions; "Will you show me the most effective way to the bus stop?" vs. "How do I get to the bus stop?"
- ams6110 9y ago
  My 10th grade English teacher was a big proponent of Strunk and White's Elements of Style. He encouraged and rewarded straightforward writing. He was one of the top two or three teachers that I ever had.
ianbicking 9y ago
Students are taught to write in a special way, using lots of fancy words; those words are seen as having some special value in and of themselves, even though the words do not contribute to the writer's self-expression. The author calls this kind of writing Engfish. To make it worse, all the teachers (having previously been good students) use these same words, and so the students naturally try to mimic the teachers. (Personal observation: science writing is like this x100, packed to the gills with unnecessary words.) Further, the author contends the problem isn't just too much complexity, but that mimicking this form distracts from the important pursuits in writing: telling a story, expressing your own unique experience, writing something memorable and enjoyable. A phrase that stuck out to me was: "Most English teachers have been trained to correct students' writing, not to read it" – which is challenging, because to read the writing you have to engage with the content not just the form, and then having engaged with the content you can critique the form now that you have some idea what the writer is trying to say. The reading can't be rote if the writing isn't to be rote, but try that when you have a stack of poorly written stuff made by kids. It's also challenging because the writer doesn't necessarily have anything to say when the writing is assigned, so you might search for something that isn't there.

stagbeetle 9y ago

The author is complaining that formal education is strangling the soul of beautiful English to death. There's some truth to this, although his protests are misaligned. Regimented English classes are not the proper breeding grounds for writing with individualistic expression, they are simply to teach students how to communicate eloquently. Essays and research papers are meant only to communicate and persuade, not enrich and entertain, as one commenter has implied. If one wishes to dine with Twain and Bonte, they can do so in the myriad of creative writing courses available to them. But there is simply no practical use in the idealistic battle between creatives and the man, the corporates, the zombies here. It's a noble pursuit and should flourish, but it's barking up the wrong tree.