Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Just to be "picky", "Morte d'Arthur" is generally not categorized as a "novel". The first English novelist is widely regarded as having been Samuel Richardson, with "Pamela", published in 1740. The earlier works, such as Morte d'Arthur, Robinson Crusoe, etc, are normally called "Romances", to distinguish them from novels.
|
Why are Romances distinguished from novels? The definition of a novel is: A fictional prose narrative of considerable length, typically having a plot that is unfolded by the actions, speech, and thoughts of the characters. How is a romance different from this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
I read, write, and enjoy science fiction. The majority of the public already looks down on me for my choice of literature!  <SNIP> |
My choice of leisure reading is held in even more contempt than Science Fiction. Even here at MR. I like Romance novels. They, for me, are a great escape from every day life which, can even at the best of times, lack romance (I'm not talk about sex, but more: A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful). I don't make a big deal about my reading preferences, nor do I feel particularly drawn to discuss it. It is what it is. Liking to read romance novels does not mean I am lacking in intelligence nor does it mean that I am culturally barren. I read classic novels, too. Some I like, some I find incredibly dull. Just because one (or even many) people say a novel is classic and hold it in high regard, does not mean every one does (or even should). Reading material, like music, movies, indeed any form of entertainment, is highly personal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhadin
It worries me but I see no way to do anything aobut it. Here in the U.S. the problem begins with parents who don't/can't read, who spend more time taking care of their employer's business than their children's business.
Then comes school and we entrust our children to teachers who can't distinguish a noun from a verb, who penalize their students for grammatically correct prose because they (the teachers) can't recognize a grammatically correct sentence, and whose only concern is higher pay for less work and lower skill set.
The saddest part of my business is editing books written by teachers for fellow teachers. It simply brings to the fore how poorly educated our teachers are.
(BTW, there was an excellent article in The Economist last week about poor teachers in Britain. Could easily have substituted U.S. for Britain in the article.)
I do not expect to see any turnaround in the U.S. in my lifetime.
|
As a teacher, I find your comments very stereotypical and a bit offensive, but sadly, quite common. I am sure there are teachers out there who are not up to the teaching level we would expect for our children, however, I happen to know many, many teachers who are exceptional at what they do. Are they perfect? Absolutely not, but they strive everyday to do a job who's parameters are continually expanding, thanks to the lack of parental involvement, and contracting, due to strictures set down by government officials who have little understanding of what actually happens on a day-to-day basis in the classroom.
What bothers me most about this book is that the ghost writer felt she needed to take the contract in the first place. It is very difficult to "get a break" in the publishing world. Was she having trouble getting published on her own? Did they promise her a chance to publish under her own name if she did these books? Before I condemn her, I would need to know more of the motivation behind her decision.