LEAN into it?
-
My medical school had an accelerated program for some students. In that program, the student would attend undergraduate school, the education being focused on the sciences - biology, biochemistry, etc. After two years, they would join the incoming medical school class and take the same courses everyone else did. After the first year, they would be awarded a college degree. I don't recall exactly what it was called, but it was something like "Bachelor of Arts, Medical Sciences." They took almost no liberal arts.
Of my class of 160, 60 were in that program. I was in the 8 year program. We called them "shunts."
In the first couple of years, there was a distinct difference in ... something, in the shunts. I suppose it could be attributed to the difference between a 20 year old and a 22 year old. Perhaps, it was the lack of liberal arts education.
However, by the time real clinical work began, there was no difference in performance, personality whatever.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
All of that is just undoubtedly true. Now, cue the "but liberal arts" crowd.
It is undoubtedly true that liberal arts makes you more fun at parties.
Tequila is cheaper and has much the same effect
We had this discussion just the other day, and I bemoaned the fact that UK higher education focused so much on just studying the major subject. I seem to remember Jolly saying how important the liberal arts were, and I fully agree. My kids seem to be getting a much more rounded education than I did.
The LEAN workplace is miserable enough already. For God's sake let people absorb a bit of culture before they're sucked into the rat-race.
@Doctor-Phibes said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
All of that is just undoubtedly true. Now, cue the "but liberal arts" crowd.
It is undoubtedly true that liberal arts makes you more fun at parties.
Tequila is cheaper and has much the same effect
We had this discussion just the other day, and I bemoaned the fact that UK higher education focused so much on just studying the major subject. I seem to remember Jolly saying how important the liberal arts were, and I fully agree. My kids seem to be getting a much more rounded education than I did.
The LEAN workplace is miserable enough already. For God's sake let people absorb a bit of culture before they're sucked into the rat-race.
I do think liberal arts are an important part of higher education. I also think there is too much fluff in many college degrees and some of that fluff is used to make money for the university.
Ok, stating that we need to continue some liberal arts education, even in technical degrees, I'd like to add a corollary...I'd like the mandatory liberal arts courses at the bachelor's level to be a shared experience. All students must take ___ hours of the same courses.
So, if we are mandating a few common courses, yet keeping in mind that we need to speed up degree acquisition, what liberal arts courses would you mandate and how many hours would you require?
âCry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!â
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terroristsâ "due process". â Buck Sexton
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
All of that is just undoubtedly true. Now, cue the "but liberal arts" crowd.
It is undoubtedly true that liberal arts makes you more fun at parties.
Tequila is cheaper and has much the same effect
We had this discussion just the other day, and I bemoaned the fact that UK higher education focused so much on just studying the major subject. I seem to remember Jolly saying how important the liberal arts were, and I fully agree. My kids seem to be getting a much more rounded education than I did.
The LEAN workplace is miserable enough already. For God's sake let people absorb a bit of culture before they're sucked into the rat-race.
I do think liberal arts are an important part of higher education. I also think there is too much fluff in many college degrees and some of that fluff is used to make money for the university.
Ok, stating that we need to continue some liberal arts education, even in technical degrees, I'd like to add a corollary...I'd like the mandatory liberal arts courses at the bachelor's level to be a shared experience. All students must take ___ hours of the same courses.
So, if we are mandating a few common courses, yet keeping in mind that we need to speed up degree acquisition, what liberal arts courses would you mandate and how many hours would you require?
@Jolly said in LEAN into it?:
Ok, stating that we need to continue some liberal arts education, even in technical degrees, I'd like to add a corollary...I'd like the mandatory liberal arts courses at the bachelor's level to be a shared experience. All students must take ___ hours of the same courses.
So, if we are mandating a few common courses, yet keeping in mind that we need to speed up degree acquisition, what liberal arts courses would you mandate and how many hours would you require?
I don't think individual courses should be mandated, I think people learn better if they get to choose and play to their interests. The furthest I'd go is to say 'at least two (or whatever) from the following....' and then give a decently large selection from literature, history, art, music, economics etc.
My real complaint about my degree was that I had very little choice.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
All of that is just undoubtedly true. Now, cue the "but liberal arts" crowd.
It is undoubtedly true that liberal arts makes you more fun at parties.
Tequila is cheaper and has much the same effect
We had this discussion just the other day, and I bemoaned the fact that UK higher education focused so much on just studying the major subject. I seem to remember Jolly saying how important the liberal arts were, and I fully agree. My kids seem to be getting a much more rounded education than I did.
The LEAN workplace is miserable enough already. For God's sake let people absorb a bit of culture before they're sucked into the rat-race.
I do think liberal arts are an important part of higher education. I also think there is too much fluff in many college degrees and some of that fluff is used to make money for the university.
Ok, stating that we need to continue some liberal arts education, even in technical degrees, I'd like to add a corollary...I'd like the mandatory liberal arts courses at the bachelor's level to be a shared experience. All students must take ___ hours of the same courses.
So, if we are mandating a few common courses, yet keeping in mind that we need to speed up degree acquisition, what liberal arts courses would you mandate and how many hours would you require?
@Jolly said in LEAN into it?:
So, if we are mandating a few common courses, yet keeping in mind that we need to speed up degree acquisition, what liberal arts courses would you mandate and how many hours would you require?
You can't get a "liberal arts education" in 4 years. It's got to be something you regularly do. It does you no good if for example you just stop at 21 and never pick up a book, watch a movie, see a play or read a news story ever again.
That's why I really like the St. John's model. You have a course on a textâno surveys. Throughout the semester, you meet as a class and try to collectively figure out just what it is you're reading. The instructor's there to facilitate discussion andâoh my word, controversyâgently call students out when they've strayed from reasonable interpretation or start talking out of their ass.
If you can do this with, say, Paradise Lost, then whether or not you've become a Milton appreciator is beside the point. What you've done is learn how to participate with a story, which is what you'll need for every other you'll ever come across.
Please love yourself.
-
@Jolly said in LEAN into it?:
So, if we are mandating a few common courses, yet keeping in mind that we need to speed up degree acquisition, what liberal arts courses would you mandate and how many hours would you require?
You can't get a "liberal arts education" in 4 years. It's got to be something you regularly do. It does you no good if for example you just stop at 21 and never pick up a book, watch a movie, see a play or read a news story ever again.
That's why I really like the St. John's model. You have a course on a textâno surveys. Throughout the semester, you meet as a class and try to collectively figure out just what it is you're reading. The instructor's there to facilitate discussion andâoh my word, controversyâgently call students out when they've strayed from reasonable interpretation or start talking out of their ass.
If you can do this with, say, Paradise Lost, then whether or not you've become a Milton appreciator is beside the point. What you've done is learn how to participate with a story, which is what you'll need for every other you'll ever come across.
@Aqua-Letifer There was a college like that in Mount Carroll IL - Shimer College
It was a happy thing just to know that a place as unlikely as Shimerâwhich, eschewing textbooks and lectures, assigned only primary texts, taught through discussion, and admitted promising students without ACT scores or high school degreesâcould exist.
-
@Jolly said in LEAN into it?:
So, if we are mandating a few common courses, yet keeping in mind that we need to speed up degree acquisition, what liberal arts courses would you mandate and how many hours would you require?
You can't get a "liberal arts education" in 4 years. It's got to be something you regularly do. It does you no good if for example you just stop at 21 and never pick up a book, watch a movie, see a play or read a news story ever again.
That's why I really like the St. John's model. You have a course on a textâno surveys. Throughout the semester, you meet as a class and try to collectively figure out just what it is you're reading. The instructor's there to facilitate discussion andâoh my word, controversyâgently call students out when they've strayed from reasonable interpretation or start talking out of their ass.
If you can do this with, say, Paradise Lost, then whether or not you've become a Milton appreciator is beside the point. What you've done is learn how to participate with a story, which is what you'll need for every other you'll ever come across.
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
You can't get a "liberal arts education" in 4 years. It's got to be something you regularly do. It does you no good if for example you just stop at 21 and never pick up a book, watch a movie, see a play or read a news story ever again.
Isn't that true of all education? You're not really an engineer once you get an engineering degree. All a university or school can really hope to do is light a fire.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
You can't get a "liberal arts education" in 4 years. It's got to be something you regularly do. It does you no good if for example you just stop at 21 and never pick up a book, watch a movie, see a play or read a news story ever again.
Isn't that true of all education? You're not really an engineer once you get an engineering degree. All a university or school can really hope to do is light a fire.
@Doctor-Phibes said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
You can't get a "liberal arts education" in 4 years. It's got to be something you regularly do. It does you no good if for example you just stop at 21 and never pick up a book, watch a movie, see a play or read a news story ever again.
Isn't that true of all education? You're not really an engineer once you get an engineering degree. All a university or school can really hope to do is light a fire.
Yes but the two couldn't be more different.
For one, no one is born knowing how to be an engineer, and not everyone is. It takes several years of training to even understand the concepts. Not true with storytelling. Children start telling stories at around the age of 2 years old. Unlike engineering, which is a necessary profession that not everyone needs to pursue, storytelling is something we all need to do. It's a basic part of what it means to be a human being. But, stuff starts to happen. Around second grade, we start being told our forms of expression are stupid. Our drawings, our stories, our games. Teachers, too, tell us this in their own way. Stories and games is slacking off silly shit and we need to cut it out and pay attention. Most people are very impressionable when it comes to social shame, and so cut it out we do. We stop expressing themselves. That creates some serious problems.
Second, no Western society is in danger of not teaching enough about the STEM fields. We're given incentives at every turn, from the time we start school to the time we retire. Upskilling, M-shaped skillsets and cross-compatible training and other such bullshit is shoved down our throats until we get our pensions. But plenty of people are not getting a proper liberal arts education. A central tenet of hustle-bro culture, which has many devotees, actually view fiction as a waste of time because "it's not real." This insanity shows in how they live, how they view the world, how they think of themselves and how they navigate cultural changes.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
You can't get a "liberal arts education" in 4 years. It's got to be something you regularly do. It does you no good if for example you just stop at 21 and never pick up a book, watch a movie, see a play or read a news story ever again.
Isn't that true of all education? You're not really an engineer once you get an engineering degree. All a university or school can really hope to do is light a fire.
Yes but the two couldn't be more different.
For one, no one is born knowing how to be an engineer, and not everyone is. It takes several years of training to even understand the concepts. Not true with storytelling. Children start telling stories at around the age of 2 years old. Unlike engineering, which is a necessary profession that not everyone needs to pursue, storytelling is something we all need to do. It's a basic part of what it means to be a human being. But, stuff starts to happen. Around second grade, we start being told our forms of expression are stupid. Our drawings, our stories, our games. Teachers, too, tell us this in their own way. Stories and games is slacking off silly shit and we need to cut it out and pay attention. Most people are very impressionable when it comes to social shame, and so cut it out we do. We stop expressing themselves. That creates some serious problems.
Second, no Western society is in danger of not teaching enough about the STEM fields. We're given incentives at every turn, from the time we start school to the time we retire. Upskilling, M-shaped skillsets and cross-compatible training and other such bullshit is shoved down our throats until we get our pensions. But plenty of people are not getting a proper liberal arts education. A central tenet of hustle-bro culture, which has many devotees, actually view fiction as a waste of time because "it's not real." This insanity shows in how they live, how they view the world, how they think of themselves and how they navigate cultural changes.
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
You can't get a "liberal arts education" in 4 years. It's got to be something you regularly do. It does you no good if for example you just stop at 21 and never pick up a book, watch a movie, see a play or read a news story ever again.
Isn't that true of all education? You're not really an engineer once you get an engineering degree. All a university or school can really hope to do is light a fire.
Yes but the two couldn't be more different.
For one, no one is born knowing how to be an engineer, and not everyone is. It takes several years of training to even understand the concepts. Not true with storytelling. Children start telling stories at around the age of 2 years old. Unlike engineering, which is a necessary profession that not everyone needs to pursue, storytelling is something we all need to do. It's a basic part of what it means to be a human being. But, stuff starts to happen. Around second grade, we start being told our forms of expression are stupid. Our drawings, our stories, our games. Teachers, too, tell us this in their own way. Stories and games is slacking off silly shit and we need to cut it out and pay attention. Most people are very impressionable when it comes to social shame, and so cut it out we do. We stop expressing themselves. That creates some serious problems.
Second, no Western society is in danger of not teaching enough about the STEM fields. We're given incentives at every turn, from the time we start school to the time we retire. Upskilling, M-shaped skillsets and cross-compatible training and other such bullshit is shoved down our throats until we get our pensions. But plenty of people are not getting a proper liberal arts education. A central tenet of hustle-bro culture, which has many devotees, actually view fiction as a waste of time because "it's not real." This insanity shows in how they live, how they view the world, how they think of themselves and how they navigate cultural changes.
I agree with your point in general, and I think we could all do with some more stories, games, music and art. I'm not sure I agree about the separation of engineering as being solely a learned skill. We have a fundamental instinct to build things and also to solve puzzles in the same way that we tell stories. At the risk of sounding like a complete dork, I was never happier as a small kid as when I was solving those logical puzzles we used to be given to shut us up on car journeys.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
You can't get a "liberal arts education" in 4 years. It's got to be something you regularly do. It does you no good if for example you just stop at 21 and never pick up a book, watch a movie, see a play or read a news story ever again.
Isn't that true of all education? You're not really an engineer once you get an engineering degree. All a university or school can really hope to do is light a fire.
Yes but the two couldn't be more different.
For one, no one is born knowing how to be an engineer, and not everyone is. It takes several years of training to even understand the concepts. Not true with storytelling. Children start telling stories at around the age of 2 years old. Unlike engineering, which is a necessary profession that not everyone needs to pursue, storytelling is something we all need to do. It's a basic part of what it means to be a human being. But, stuff starts to happen. Around second grade, we start being told our forms of expression are stupid. Our drawings, our stories, our games. Teachers, too, tell us this in their own way. Stories and games is slacking off silly shit and we need to cut it out and pay attention. Most people are very impressionable when it comes to social shame, and so cut it out we do. We stop expressing themselves. That creates some serious problems.
Second, no Western society is in danger of not teaching enough about the STEM fields. We're given incentives at every turn, from the time we start school to the time we retire. Upskilling, M-shaped skillsets and cross-compatible training and other such bullshit is shoved down our throats until we get our pensions. But plenty of people are not getting a proper liberal arts education. A central tenet of hustle-bro culture, which has many devotees, actually view fiction as a waste of time because "it's not real." This insanity shows in how they live, how they view the world, how they think of themselves and how they navigate cultural changes.
I agree with your point in general, and I think we could all do with some more stories, games, music and art. I'm not sure I agree about the separation of engineering as being solely a learned skill. We have a fundamental instinct to build things and also to solve puzzles in the same way that we tell stories. At the risk of sounding like a complete dork, I was never happier as a small kid as when I was solving those logical puzzles we used to be given to shut us up on car journeys.
@Doctor-Phibes said in LEAN into it?:
I agree with your point in general, and I think we could all do with some more stories, games, music and art. I'm not sure I agree about the separation of engineering as being solely a learned skill. We have a fundamental instinct to build things and also to solve puzzles in the same way that we tell stories. At the risk of sounding like a complete dork, I was never happier as a small kid as when I was solving those logical puzzles we used to be given to shut us up on car journeys.
Yeah I'd say that's fair enough. We sure do like building things, too.
My parents were really hoping I'd get into engineering; I loved the shit out of Legos and Erector sets.
And I don't hate STEM at all; my first degree was in the sciences. I just think our education curriculum is lopsided and that it's making us all a little ill-equipped for adulthood.
Please love yourself.
-
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
All of that is just undoubtedly true. Now, cue the "but liberal arts" crowd.
It is undoubtedly true that liberal arts makes you more fun at parties.
I've learned my share of liberal arts, but I'm still not fun at parties.
I think that first one is an assumption that may or may not be true. Particularly if by "liberal arts" you're referring to something that was administered through an educational institution.
I thought that's what we were talking about. What is it that you're talking about?
Actual liberal arts education. Sometimes you can get that through institutional education, but it's usually difficult.
That's just a hand wave. I'm sure you're good at liberal arts, and are educated in (some of) them. And I'm sure you're fun at parties. I'm not sure you're fun at parties because you can discuss Homer, but maybe so. That would have to be a particular party.
I'm mostly just giving you crap because I believe you mentioned previously that you reject party invitations as a metric for anything.
As for the value of liberal arts, my point really is that most liberal arts are just a specialization of storytelling. And one of the weirdest consequences to come out of the Enlightenment has been the idea that stories are entertainment. They're literally how we make sense of the world. You yourself tell many stories about the wokes here on this forum.
Since it's so fundamental to the human experience, then yeah, there's a great value in exposing ourselves to stories of all kinds, learning how to understand them and how to tell them properly to ourselves and others.
But it's not a hand-wave to say that a great many educational institutions completely fail their students in this. Many of their students end up worse off than when they started.
I'm all for a liberal arts education and think it's essential to living properly, but I have my doubts about whether this education should be sought in today's schools. Quite a few programs do more harm than good in this area.
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
All of that is just undoubtedly true. Now, cue the "but liberal arts" crowd.
It is undoubtedly true that liberal arts makes you more fun at parties.
I've learned my share of liberal arts, but I'm still not fun at parties.
I think that first one is an assumption that may or may not be true. Particularly if by "liberal arts" you're referring to something that was administered through an educational institution.
I thought that's what we were talking about. What is it that you're talking about?
Actual liberal arts education. Sometimes you can get that through institutional education, but it's usually difficult.
That's just a hand wave. I'm sure you're good at liberal arts, and are educated in (some of) them. And I'm sure you're fun at parties. I'm not sure you're fun at parties because you can discuss Homer, but maybe so. That would have to be a particular party.
I'm mostly just giving you crap because I believe you mentioned previously that you reject party invitations as a metric for anything.
As for the value of liberal arts, my point really is that most liberal arts are just a specialization of storytelling. And one of the weirdest consequences to come out of the Enlightenment has been the idea that stories are entertainment. They're literally how we make sense of the world. You yourself tell many stories about the wokes here on this forum.
Since it's so fundamental to the human experience, then yeah, there's a great value in exposing ourselves to stories of all kinds, learning how to understand them and how to tell them properly to ourselves and others.
But it's not a hand-wave to say that a great many educational institutions completely fail their students in this. Many of their students end up worse off than when they started.
I'm all for a liberal arts education and think it's essential to living properly, but I have my doubts about whether this education should be sought in today's schools. Quite a few programs do more harm than good in this area.
I've been falling asleep to the Lord of the Rings recently. It renewed my respect for the books. Not only as an intellectual achievement, which they were (you can sense that an academic wrote them), but because Tolkien so well achieved his stated and only goal, which was to tell a fun and maybe even moving story.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in LEAN into it?:
I agree with your point in general, and I think we could all do with some more stories, games, music and art. I'm not sure I agree about the separation of engineering as being solely a learned skill. We have a fundamental instinct to build things and also to solve puzzles in the same way that we tell stories. At the risk of sounding like a complete dork, I was never happier as a small kid as when I was solving those logical puzzles we used to be given to shut us up on car journeys.
Yeah I'd say that's fair enough. We sure do like building things, too.
My parents were really hoping I'd get into engineering; I loved the shit out of Legos and Erector sets.
And I don't hate STEM at all; my first degree was in the sciences. I just think our education curriculum is lopsided and that it's making us all a little ill-equipped for adulthood.
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
I just think our education curriculum is lopsided and that it's making us all a little ill-equipped for adulthood.
If you think it's bad here, you should try the science degree in the UK.
Actually, in Britain, it's historically been more of a class thing, and if you consider that the British obsession with class was a little like that of the US consideration of race, this kind of makes sense. Traditionally, a private education would allow much more study of the arts than that of the state-funded comprehensive schools, like what I went to. My dad went to a private school (somewhat bizarrely called a Public School) back in the the 1930's, and he said he was rather looked down on because he wanted to study chemistry rather than Latin, Greek, rugby and/or cricket.
I think there's a reason so much of the really creative British comedy and art comes from Cambridge University graduates.
I was only joking
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
All of that is just undoubtedly true. Now, cue the "but liberal arts" crowd.
It is undoubtedly true that liberal arts makes you more fun at parties.
I've learned my share of liberal arts, but I'm still not fun at parties.
I think that first one is an assumption that may or may not be true. Particularly if by "liberal arts" you're referring to something that was administered through an educational institution.
I thought that's what we were talking about. What is it that you're talking about?
Actual liberal arts education. Sometimes you can get that through institutional education, but it's usually difficult.
That's just a hand wave. I'm sure you're good at liberal arts, and are educated in (some of) them. And I'm sure you're fun at parties. I'm not sure you're fun at parties because you can discuss Homer, but maybe so. That would have to be a particular party.
I'm mostly just giving you crap because I believe you mentioned previously that you reject party invitations as a metric for anything.
As for the value of liberal arts, my point really is that most liberal arts are just a specialization of storytelling. And one of the weirdest consequences to come out of the Enlightenment has been the idea that stories are entertainment. They're literally how we make sense of the world. You yourself tell many stories about the wokes here on this forum.
Since it's so fundamental to the human experience, then yeah, there's a great value in exposing ourselves to stories of all kinds, learning how to understand them and how to tell them properly to ourselves and others.
But it's not a hand-wave to say that a great many educational institutions completely fail their students in this. Many of their students end up worse off than when they started.
I'm all for a liberal arts education and think it's essential to living properly, but I have my doubts about whether this education should be sought in today's schools. Quite a few programs do more harm than good in this area.
I've been falling asleep to the Lord of the Rings recently. It renewed my respect for the books. Not only as an intellectual achievement, which they were (you can sense that an academic wrote them), but because Tolkien so well achieved his stated and only goal, which was to tell a fun and maybe even moving story.
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
Tolkien so well achieved his stated and only goal, which was to tell a fun and maybe even moving story.
I think that if you were to read what he said on the topic of what his Legendarium was all about, or even just "On Fairy Stories," you'd find that that wasn't his "stated and only goal."
Please love yourself.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
I just think our education curriculum is lopsided and that it's making us all a little ill-equipped for adulthood.
If you think it's bad here, you should try the science degree in the UK.
Actually, in Britain, it's historically been more of a class thing, and if you consider that the British obsession with class was a little like that of the US consideration of race, this kind of makes sense. Traditionally, a private education would allow much more study of the arts than that of the state-funded comprehensive schools, like what I went to. My dad went to a private school (somewhat bizarrely called a Public School) back in the the 1930's, and he said he was rather looked down on because he wanted to study chemistry rather than Latin, Greek, rugby and/or cricket.
I think there's a reason so much of the really creative British comedy and art comes from Cambridge University graduates.
@Doctor-Phibes said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
I just think our education curriculum is lopsided and that it's making us all a little ill-equipped for adulthood.
If you think it's bad here, you should try the science degree in the UK.
Actually, in Britain, it's historically been more of a class thing, and if you consider that the British obsession with class was a little like that of the US consideration of race, this kind of makes sense. Traditionally, a private education would allow much more study of the arts than that of the state-funded comprehensive schools, like what I went to. My dad went to a private school (somewhat bizarrely called a Public School) back in the the 1930's, and he said he was rather looked down on because he wanted to study chemistry rather than Latin, Greek, rugby and/or cricket.
I think there's a reason so much of the really creative British comedy and art comes from Cambridge University graduates.
Makes sense from a historical perspective. For the Brits, the fish can't see the water. As much as they may talk a big game about how much they dislike the idea of aristos, they seem to expect that system and continue to perpetuate it. For Americans, we've got that Puritanical thing going on that's hard to shake. We idolize the concept of the self-made captain of industry, not the artist. Unless it's political stuff the artist explores. Then we love that shit.
-
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
Tolkien so well achieved his stated and only goal, which was to tell a fun and maybe even moving story.
I think that if you were to read what he said on the topic of what his Legendarium was all about, or even just "On Fairy Stories," you'd find that that wasn't his "stated and only goal."
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
Tolkien so well achieved his stated and only goal, which was to tell a fun and maybe even moving story.
I think that if you were to read what he said on the topic of what his Legendarium was all about, or even just "On Fairy Stories," you'd find that that wasn't his "stated and only goal."
I'm going by his prologue to LOTR. Where he says he detests allegory. (And that his only goal with LOTR was to tell a good story.) Maybe he contradicted himself somewhere else, or maybe his goal with other works was not the same.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
Tolkien so well achieved his stated and only goal, which was to tell a fun and maybe even moving story.
I think that if you were to read what he said on the topic of what his Legendarium was all about, or even just "On Fairy Stories," you'd find that that wasn't his "stated and only goal."
I'm going by his prologue to LOTR. Where he says he detests allegory. (And that his only goal with LOTR was to tell a good story.) Maybe he contradicted himself somewhere else, or maybe his goal with other works was not the same.
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
Tolkien so well achieved his stated and only goal, which was to tell a fun and maybe even moving story.
I think that if you were to read what he said on the topic of what his Legendarium was all about, or even just "On Fairy Stories," you'd find that that wasn't his "stated and only goal."
I'm going by his prologue to LOTR. Where he says he detests allegory. (And that his only goal with LOTR was to tell a good story.) Maybe he contradicted himself somewhere else, or maybe his goal with other works was not the same.
Yeah, I think this is what you mean?
As for any inner meaning or 'message,' it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. ... I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence."
"Intention of the author none" is the critical part of that. He doesn't see it as a story that has a specific meaning to him, but rather there are resonances that others can and should read into.
This isn't just a theory; he lays it out quite plainly in "On Fairy Stories" and several of his letters. His framing here in the prologue of LoTR is likely written in this way because he really hated the idea of readers treating his story as a kind of cipher.
He also mentions in the prologue his distinction between allegory and what he calls "applicability," which he believed LoTR to have.
An example:
***=NSFW content***
click to show -
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in LEAN into it?:
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
Tolkien so well achieved his stated and only goal, which was to tell a fun and maybe even moving story.
I think that if you were to read what he said on the topic of what his Legendarium was all about, or even just "On Fairy Stories," you'd find that that wasn't his "stated and only goal."
I'm going by his prologue to LOTR. Where he says he detests allegory. (And that his only goal with LOTR was to tell a good story.) Maybe he contradicted himself somewhere else, or maybe his goal with other works was not the same.
Yeah, I think this is what you mean?
As for any inner meaning or 'message,' it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. ... I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence."
"Intention of the author none" is the critical part of that. He doesn't see it as a story that has a specific meaning to him, but rather there are resonances that others can and should read into.
This isn't just a theory; he lays it out quite plainly in "On Fairy Stories" and several of his letters. His framing here in the prologue of LoTR is likely written in this way because he really hated the idea of readers treating his story as a kind of cipher.
He also mentions in the prologue his distinction between allegory and what he calls "applicability," which he believed LoTR to have.
An example:
***=NSFW content***
click to show@Aqua-Letifer Thanks for expanding on your point. I didn't mean to imply that personal resonances in the reader should not exist. I take your point that Tolkien wanted to impress on everybody that he had no specific allegory in mind, but that he embraces the fact that readers will take their own abstract messages.
Beyond the detesting allegory thing, I was referring to this, from that same prologue:
The prime motive was the desire of a tale teller to try his hand at a long story, that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them.
-
@Aqua-Letifer Thanks for expanding on your point. I didn't mean to imply that personal resonances in the reader should not exist. I take your point that Tolkien wanted to impress on everybody that he had no specific allegory in mind, but that he embraces the fact that readers will take their own abstract messages.
Beyond the detesting allegory thing, I was referring to this, from that same prologue:
The prime motive was the desire of a tale teller to try his hand at a long story, that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them.
@Horace said in LEAN into it?:
@Aqua-Letifer Thanks for expanding on your point. I didn't mean to imply that personal resonances in the reader should not exist. I take your point that Tolkien wanted to impress on everybody that he had no specific allegory in mind, but that he embraces the fact that readers will take their own abstract messages.
Beyond the detesting allegory thing, I was referring to this, from that same prologue:
The prime motive was the desire of a tale teller to try his hand at a long story, that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them.
Yeah, that makes sense and in my mind is not contradictory. Whether you're John Creasey, crankin' out another paperback over the weekend or Tolkien, developing a deep story with massive cultural resonances, your book is going to suck if it's not engrossing. But that's not all that it was to him.
He admits it here:
It was not what I set out to write, but it is what it has become.
