Podcast X: Episode 114 - "I'm talking new, improved zombies."

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Episode 114 - "I'm talking new, improved zombies."

PCX reviews The Spirit V5 #7 & Runaways V3 #7

Click here to listen.

49 Comments:

Anonymous said...: What a coinkiydink! I just read this issue of Runaways this morning!; March 15, 2009 9:03 PM
Anonymous said...: You motherfucker! I know better than to comment before I listened to the episode. You know you WANTED to read some more Runaways.

Strangers in Paradise was awesome (even though you and Comic Racks beg to differ) and Terry Moore's Echo is good as well.

I think that Moore is the third best writer of Runaways, and this issue was pretty ridiculous, but I loved the previous issue when Xavin sacrificed his/her freedom for his/her chick.

This is probably not the book that Terry Moore should be on. This is the type of book that needs a particular touch.

Oh, and I don't think ANYONE should be fired for being racist or "offensive" I think they should be talked to, they should be heard by the public and they should be given warning that what you say doesn't fly with everyone.

If Will Eisner can't draw and write a horrific black sterotype, then Podcast X should be shut down for allowing Anonymous Courtney to listen, and Thoom should be shut down for its advocation of child pornography!; March 16, 2009 1:56 PM
T Mafia said...: I do want more Runaways...just as long as Terry Moore's not the one writing the book.

I tried to read an issue of that Strangers in Paradise mess, and I'm siding with the Comic Racks broads (or at least Stacebob - I think she's the one I remember trashing it) on this one.

At least Xavin was in character in last issue, but you just know Moore got rid of (or Marvel forced him to get rid of) him/her just to purge the book of any hint of hot lesbo action.

Moore shouldn't be on the book because he's writing down to what he probably thinks is the book's natural (read: young) audience, as opposed to writing for "all ages" in the best sense (meaning for everybody) like Vaughan and Whedon did.

We can at least fire a comic book writer for being painfully boring, right? Oh damn, apparently not. Otherwise, Chris Claremont wouldn't still have a career.

Actually, Runaways could only benefit from child porn scenes at this point. Then again, we don't know what Molly and the new girl are up to with each other when we're not watching.; March 16, 2009 6:58 PM
T Mafia said...: Oh, and since you brought up Mr. THOOM!, I should probably mention here that I'm on Tim's latest episode in which we team up to give the infamous Human Fly all the respect he (*cough*) deserves.; March 16, 2009 7:18 PM
Anonymous said...: I have come to the conclusion that men do not really like lesbians.
Because in reality lesbians are butch and often not terribley attractive, also they hate men.
The last two facts may somehow be related.

What men like are bisexuals. Women who are up for anything. You can watch her go at another girl and then you can root her yourself afterwards.

Kind of like why girls like Captain Jack Harkness.

Courtney; March 17, 2009 9:29 AM
T Mafia said...: Okay, you've conclusively proven that it's a good idea for women to have sex with each other (obviously, I didn't need much convincing on that front), but would you really still want Jack Harkness after he'd just been fucked by some other dude, though?; March 18, 2009 8:37 PM
T Mafia said...: On a completely unrelated note, I should probably mention in addition to this PCX ep. and the latest THOOM!, I'm also on the new Comic Book Attic reviewing the book that's fueled many a pedophile's sickest fantasy, Sugar & Spike.; March 18, 2009 9:14 PM
XantesFire said...: What's wrong with Marvel, Terry Moore is a chick, therefore should only write girl comics like "Stranglers in Paradise."

Courtney, are you kidding? Getting men hating dykes to perform for guys is part of the humiliating fun.

Great, Now you're making me download another episode of Comic book attic. Hold on. Okay, I just listened to it. What no "boob count?"

In Ref to Spirit, seriously there are kids as dumb as Ebony White and dumber. All babies are evil.

In ref to Runaways - of course the new girl has bigger boobies than Molly. The new girl has had sex. It's been scientifically proven that boobs get bigger the more sex a female has and rubbing sperm on her chest is like Boobies Gro.; March 20, 2009 12:45 PM
XantesFire said...: Is it really all that bad?; March 20, 2009 12:50 PM
T Mafia said...: Okay, Terry Moore, despite his complete lack of manly qualities such as talent or skill, is indeed a male of the species (even if I wasn't sure if you were kidding and just double-checked online); after all, everyone knows women have no business doing anything that requires any kind of creativity or intelligence, like writing. Gail Simone? Clearly, a hermaphrodite. No, really. I mean, just look at her.

Sheldon Mayer must have suspected that I'd one day review his comic, hence his covering Sugar's baby boobies with soap bubbles at the end of that first story and preventing me from counting them.

Fuck medical science for saving everyone's life these days. That train was just giving those girls a perfectly fair "Are you bitches too stupid to live?" test...and they failed.

As further evidence of your credible "sperm-on-titties" theory, note lesbian Karolina's relative flat-chestedness compared to slutty Nico's rack in the beach scene.

Sheesh. Eisner may have been a creative genius but he was definitely, as they say, "a product of his time".; March 20, 2009 8:22 PM
XantesFire said...: If Terry Moore isn't female then atleast gay, right?

My favorite line was,-Destiny says. "My mom told me I lost a leg, and it didn't really go through my mind. It didn't really go through my mind for, like, a month. I was like, 'Whatever, I lost a leg, it will grow back.' And then I was like, 'Wait a minute. No, it won't.'"

Think they need a copy of Amputee Love?; March 21, 2009 9:31 AM
T Mafia said...: Well, Terry Moore did write about ninety or so issues of a friggin' soap opera funnybook for chicks, so he's gotta be suspect at the very least.

And those two stumpy bitches are so stupid, I'd probably start 'em out on coloring books or something before I'd work them all the way up to comic books.; March 21, 2009 6:57 PM
XantesFire said...: Isn't Amputee Love a coloring book?; March 22, 2009 10:40 AM
T Mafia said...: Admittedly, it was written on about the same level as one...!; March 23, 2009 9:28 PM
Vichus Smith said...: As punishment for falsely judging Strangers in Paradise, I submit to you a scene from later issues of SiP:

First image

I had more pics, but now they done broke, so I can't show you more awesome.; March 25, 2009 7:29 PM
T Mafia said...: Wait a minute...we're supposed to just take it on faith that the poor, defenseless dead guy is a "child molester" just because the crazy chick wants everyone to think he is? Pfft. She's just bitter that he's not still alive to be molesting her now.; March 25, 2009 9:29 PM
XantesFire said...: I thought I explained it before, child molesters are usually just victims of clumsy children. It's not their fault children fall on top of their genitals. Over and over again. And it's not their fault children suffocate themselves when playing with clear plastic bags.

Who is that girl? She looks like a redhead so she's automatically evil. Is she Judy? You know the girl, gay Spiderman "saved" Tony from?; March 25, 2009 10:55 PM
T Mafia said...: Spider-Man's never gonna live that pedophilia story down, is he?

I'd tell you that's actually a guy in the post picture, but I can't vouch for anything in that awful comic. Marvel's apparently had enough of Terry Moore's bullshit, too. Originally announced as writing the new Runaways for at least its first year, he's now history after #9.; March 28, 2009 3:44 PM
Vichus Smith said...: Ah, what are you gonna do? If him leaving keeps the Runaways alive, I'm OK with that. Now he has more time to devote toEcho, which is awesome-

Trenchcoat, don't you dare say anything about Echo. If you ever review it, I wash my hands of it!; March 28, 2009 9:14 PM
T Mafia said...: Echo? Well, I looked at the covers, anyway. So the deal is that the chick gets a bunch of metal melted permanently onto her tits? So I'm never gonna get to actually see those huge knockers of hers?! How the hell has this book lasted-- oh. It's another of Terry Moore's self-published vanity projects. Well, then.; March 29, 2009 1:36 AM
XantesFire said...: PCX: The Classics Tour.

Some kids can't spell, so they use spell check.

Some kids have accents and such, imagine writing how Thoom speaks.

Jewish stereotypes, Jew claw?

Really? Offensive to you? Really, this should have been a Vixen/StarHawk/Thoom episode.

Not into the ten year old?

Minimum salary? No rent?

Terry Moore hate.

You know, I remember taking a look at Strangers in Paradise because some female reviewer noted that a female character gets raped and she doesn't think it's the worse thing that ever happened to her. And according to the reviewer that's good because rape isn't the worse incapacitating thing you can do to a female. So I thought, okay, they may be open minded. Didn't like it.; August 19, 2011 11:21 AM
Vichus Smith said...: No matter what spell check you use, bad grammar can still win over, like saying worse instead of worst, for instance.; August 19, 2011 1:40 PM
XantesFire said...: Are you sure, I am using it as an adjective.; August 20, 2011 10:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Are you making a joke? I would hope you ere using worse as an adjective, because that's one of its only two uses.; August 20, 2011 11:02 AM
XantesFire said...: I slept thru most of my English classes, Ye olde poetry and prose used to comatose me. So when grammar came up I used to have no idea what was the difference between a proper noun and a pronoun. "...worse thing..." adjective and noun.

Was that ye olde English? "I would hope you ERE using worse..."; August 20, 2011 9:12 PM
Anonymous said...: One good correction deserves another.

I always thought that English was just your second language, not tat you were willfully ignorant.; August 21, 2011 12:15 PM
XantesFire said...: I'm not willfully ignorant as in I like being stupid, I just can't abide by the English studies conspiracy. English studies are not science, they are based on opinion. What makes Shakespeare one of the best writers who ever existed? Is it science? No, it's opinion. To become an English teacher you have to like Shakespeare or accept the "meaning" the previous English instructors make of it to pass your studies.

You have to believe in the romantic literature, ye olde English, hidden meaning, etc of English literature.
-"Can it be just a rose?"
-"No, in that context it means so much more."
-"But he's just walking along and finds a single rose, that's nature, randomness of science."
-"But the writer put it there for meaning."
-"But it's a random happenstance. Isn't wishful thinking to find higher meaning in the mundane, ordinary. What if it was a field of roses?"
-"Then the writer would mean something else."
-"You're just making it up as we go along."
-"No, we're not."
I hated English class.

You also have to be a believer that the rules of grammar, phonetics and etc must be followed by your students. But if done for poetic reasons by a well known writer(artiste), they can do whatever they want and it will be acceptable. Also acceptable if done by corporations since they have money.; August 21, 2011 10:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Soooo, because you don't think Shakespeare is all that great, you're kinda bad at grammar?

No, you don't need to like Shakespeare to be a teacher. Some teachers don't teach Shakespeare, and some people teach Shakespeare without liking it.

I'd hardly call it a "conspiracy" historians even argue if Shakespeare wrote the plays he gets credit for, or if he had other people write them. SHakeseare gets reviewed just like any other writer.

So who should be taught in English classes? If you were the English teacher and you picked a "better" writer, some kid sitting in your class might also be bored to tears.

Some people have just been deemed as our greats. Not that we have to agree, but there's a lot of fame and accomplishment behind these people becoming historical icons.

In poetry, I don't know, you can interpret what you want. I don't think people write poetry to be literal, though.

Yes, in poetry you have "poetic license" to fool around a bit with h language. In writing fiction you're not bound by all the rules of grammar, either. It's art, so just like when someone throws paint at a canvas and says it means something, you can write a story that breaks grammar rules.

DO you have an example of a corporation doing whatever they want poetically? I don't get that.; August 22, 2011 12:51 AM
XantesFire said...: No, because English studies were dishonest that I failed to learn. I attempted to burned Romeo & Juliet in class after we finished it. Me, so anti-burn books til then. It was agony exploring the meaning of old ye English slang and how a person was use it it then. He didn't like that I brought up that maybe all the stupid little wars being fought in ye old Europe was because they were all talking fancy and misunderstood the meaning.

Some teachers don't have to teach it but to become an English literary teacher you do have to take Shakespeare and similar works.

I'm not talking about the person Shakespeare, just the works. Seriously who cares? Bacon, William, D. J. Pimp, doesn't matter who wrote it, talking about the works.

The reason these works became "great" is not thru a scientific principal but by an opinion and indoctrination loop.
-These works are taught as "great" in schools by teachers who think these works are "great."
-The students learn to appreciate that these are the "greats.
-The students become teachers believing these are the "greats."
-The students/now teachers teach these works are "great."
-Those who don't agree usually do not become literary teachers because the "greats" do not interest them. Nor bother to show up at meeting where the "greats" are proclaimed as "great.

Sure, poems can mean plenty. The poem I was "instructed" on was a romantic poem and it's suppose to mean a specific meaning, according to the teacher. I got it wrong on a test and complained. She also didn't appreciate me declaring all the Friday the 13th movies as Romantics because an aspect of a romantic story is one thing/person enters or pierces another. According to her Lucas is a well known Romantic and the race to blow up the Deathstar is a perfect example.

Shop-Rite
Toys 'r Us
Dunkin Donuts; August 22, 2011 12:57 PM
Anonymous said...: If you liked English class better, more of what you wrote wouldn't make me scratch my head.

I don't know what your problem with old English is. To me it was kinda like learning Spanish. It's a snapshot of a world I wasn't born in.

Well, yes, people who like literature in high school will either become a teacher, be in he education field, or be a writer. I'm proof of that ;)

If you think works should become classics or worth reading through some sort of scientific testing, you're nuts, especially since I'm guessing you're into shows like Thoom and Podcast X, where they discuss creators.

I kinda agree with you, but I don't. I don't think a small pack of writers should be taught above all others, but dudes like Shakespeare were the Beatles of their time, bringing content that people had not seen before.

Funny thing is, when I was taking education courses in college, they do discuss that some schools treat their students as future wage slaves, just learning enough to be subservient and keep the economy running.

Maybe you would have benefited from one of these alternative schools, like Montessori. Everyone doesn't learn the same, so maybe your teachers just didn't realize that.

In schools now, some English teachers are cool, allow you to read comics from the library and do reports on them. They have to teach stuff like Shakespeare so kids will past the state tests.; August 22, 2011 1:57 PM
XantesFire said...: The cool English teachers that allow you to do reports on comics are usually being lazy or given up on you. And having to teach like Shakespeare helps prove the loop.

My problem with ye olde English is learning old outdated phrases just to understand a line in a story. That's why I wanted to burn R&J, we took days on a page.

I don't listen to this show for any scientific reason nor do I force it as anyone's curriculum. The hosts will discuss their opinions on creators and we, the listeners can reply. Such as TCM hates Heinlein because he supported Nixon, I point out other reasons to like his stuff and admit total not-understanding of why he would support Nixon.

Was Shakespeare the Beatles of his time? Bardolatry didn't really start til the mid 1800's. Sure he had fans in his day and the between time but he didn't get the notoriety til "recent." And that's when the loop picked him up.

My overall complaint was that Literature should be taught as an art because it's not being based on science but on emotions and opinions. While phonetics, grammar and such should be taught as a science. And in addition with it, we should be taught legalese, like how to read a contract and laws. Things that would be useful in the world, not obsolete like ye olde English (one teacher really didn't take that well.)

And I think your head scratching may be more because I definitely think faster than I type, so sometimes I lose parts of my thoughts before I get them out on type. Sometimes I have to abandon whole pages because I had forgotten my zinging point.; August 22, 2011 9:23 PM
YotaruVegeta said...: Whyyyyyyy don't we just be negative about everything teachers do? No, it's not true. Maybe in your experience these teachers were being lazy, but I'm talking about teachers who actually want kids to be excited to come to school and learn, so they deviate from the script just enough to keep it interesting. Do you just hate English teachers?

Literature is taught as an art, and it's also part of history. I don't know why you keep saying that it was treated as if it was a science. Teachers don't force you to accept noted authors as the "best ever."

Look, at some point you have to give examples of writing and you have to give "good" examples of writing. If we had to argue what works were the best ever (by the way, we have; Shakespeare didn't win a 1st round TKO) then nothing would be taught, because people have several ideas what's worth teaching.

Even in art you can say, objectively, that writer A knows sentence and paragraph structure than writer B. Yes, the value the reader gets varies, but I would not feel bad in saying that Shakespeare was a good writer.

As for dealing with Old English, I think that fucking high school kids need to get some variety in their life That includes Old English, or stories written in the 0s or stories from other continents. You may not like it, but I think the views of most HS students are small,only thinking about their own time and their own neighborhood.

The short version: Shakespeare is taught because people think he's a big deal. It's like, one school year out of your life, and you never have to read him again if you don't have to.

Your point about Shakespeare not being a science while grammar and spelling should be a science is basically the way it is. As you go through school, you are taught spelling, sentence structure paragraphs, etc. Then you go to high school and they teach you Shakespeare, because you are a more complex being by that time.

I don't think reading something like Romeo and Juliet was a chore, but I actually liked English class, so maybe I'm biased.

With all this talk about science, did you like science class?; August 23, 2011 12:39 AM
XantesFire said...: At the time I didn't realize it but what I hated about some of my English teachers that it was an absolute truth that their literature favorites were the best and I as their student must accept that fact or pass as a "C" student. I thought it was a matter of opinion, and didn't see how they could make such a claim.

Actually there were ones insistent that the "Bard" was the greatest writer ever, and at the different times I thought Asimov or Harry Harrison or George Orwell were.

Yeah, Shakespeare was good, for his time and type. I say the same for Stan Lee. I like Fantastic Four of the 60's. I hated Ravage 2099 of the 90's.

Sure give them the old timey English if it works. Teaching kids that way doesn't work all the times. I was a big reader in high school, 2-5 books a week. So I was open to reading. I just couldn't digest Shakespeare, I would read pages of it and realize I was reading it word by word but no connections. No images in my head, no voices of narration, the words themselves were not connecting to each other. I hate R&J, but I loved "West Side Story."

Sure the belief is students are "small", only thinking about their time and their neighborhood, but that's how people always been. I think the real difference with today's kids is how they process that info in. It's a faster and more media orientated world, they are being given new ways to process that information yet told to keep processing the old way.

one year Romeo and Juliet, another Macbeth, and then Hamlet, if only it was one year. Then there was the agonizing year of suicidal feeling when I had to read Wuthering Heights. Atleast I had Legion, Titans and Ambush Bug to retreat back to.

R&J was a chore, especially when you have to analyze it page by page.

Yes, I liked science, history, math, any subject that showed if I failed it was because I didn't study and learned the subject and that failure wasn't a matter of opinion.; August 23, 2011 5:41 PM
Anonymous said...: I'll just finish by saying that maybe 1 semester of one subject was something a student loved, an the rest was stuff you had to do to get a diploma.

Let's face it: if we had the choice from day one, we'd either go home and pa video games or do l BS elective courses. Sometimes you just have to do stuff you're not into. Maybe it's helpful in your future life, maybe not.; August 23, 2011 7:02 PM
XantesFire said...: Again, my point. Teach the useful, teach in how the kids will learn. Tear down traditions like Ye olde time English classes. It's English, people who speak English shouldn't be failing English, but they aren't just teaching English.; August 24, 2011 5:38 PM
Anonymous said...: My point would be sure, teach a variety of things, but Shakespeare isn't aught just because people want to lick the toes of some dead Englisman. Partly, the dude had something on the ball, as did some of the other big names in literature.

You're against Old English, but at what decade do we stop teaching books from throughout history? If you or I wrote a book, some of the language we used back then is basically foreign now. Kids would laugh or look at you quizically to your old slang. So why is Shakespeare so bad,especially when everyone in the class can get a book with translations printed in every copy?

In the best of circumstances you can't get everyone to like English. The same Shakespeare you don't like and don't want to like is what some kid loved reading. There's even comics taking off from Shakespeare characters.

Some people don't like English class, even if the teacher' creates a young, fun curriculum. Some people don't even like to go to class. You can't please everyone, or keep all of them interested.; August 24, 2011 6:04 PM
XantesFire said...: Yes it's obvious not all the students like how things are being taught or the subjects, so they gotta change that. They should try things more like the experimental school they talked about in This American Life, or was it in Snap Judgement. Anyway they give students a freer rein to pick and choose their students, learn at their own pace. Overall kids like learning, what destroys it for some is the ancient system they force on everyone.

My point against Shakespeare is that it's an old, outdated works. Similar to much taught in Literature. It is useless and obsolete to the majority of the people. Don't force it on everyone. Give it to the ones who want it. If I wanted Spanish classes they didn't force Italian on me. Why force Ye Olde English Lit? Teach the grammar, phonetics as part of a necessary class. Teach Literature as an extra class. I like Greek Mythology so much at the time I went out and read on it on my own and would have preferred an extra class of that instead of forced English class with Emily Bronte.; August 25, 2011 4:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Ah if it was just as easy as a snap of the fingers to get public high school

They're not teaching you speak Old English! Like I said in the last post, even some of the language you spoke in 2000 is outdated, but would you not teach a book that uses slang from 11 year ago?

English class is not purely just about teaching how to write sentences. It's also about the history of the English language. In fact, in every class you take in school, there's a little history in it. Now, if you were a History teacher, would you not teach the history of murderers, dictators and warlords?

At one point, Shakespeare wrote some books. He helped to shape some of what we read now. Boom, you have a semester of Shakespeare class.

This is going in circles, so this is the last time I'll be commenting on this subject.; August 25, 2011 12:37 PM
XantesFire said...: if you were a History teacher, would you not teach the history of murderers, dictators and warlords? Yeah, because that's history. Would I teach the history of paper in a math class, for you have to use paper to do math?

He helped to shape some of what we read now. Yeah, so? Bardolatry didn't really start til the 1800's so for a few years we did without, American Revolution did okay on it's own. He is known because of the Loop. If not for the Loop, he probably wouldn't be even a thought. Think of how many writers of old aren't. Scudder Klyce.

but would you not teach a book that uses slang from 11 year ago? Sure perhaps if it was relevant. "What's a VCR." If they were interested. "Nunnery shunnery".

Oh I know, I had these arguments with many teachers, "who is a great author to you isn't to me.", "Why learn ye olde English if this is the only place I will ever use it?", "why not teach more relevant stuff for the future?", "2+2=4, To be or not to be. Live or Let Me Die."; August 26, 2011 12:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Alright well, I'm coming back now.

1. You need to know where things come from.

2. If students got full reign on what they wanted to learn, they would just read more of what they are interested in. I think that learning you're not a fan of Shakespeare or Old English (which isn't that fucking hard for a kid to wrap his/her head around) is better than not learning about it at all.

I respect people who have informed themselves about a subject enough about a subject than someone who is ignorant and hateful towards something they have not read about.

The point of teaching Shakespeare is about taking a peek at how someone wrote in another time period, how writing has changed, and what writing was popular for that time.

In an English Class, it's better to introduce your students to a diversity of works. Are you anti-diversity?

"Old English" is hard to understand. OK, very valid point; but even in books written today, there are cultural differences amongst people who live in the same country! Should a sheltered white child not be taught a book taking place in the inner city?

Where does the barrier end? Well, I guess all books made before Shakespeare's time are out of the question. Forget that they are important works of history telling great tales. Hey, why don't we forbid teaching books that don't take place on or before 1776? This is America, dammit!

Let's take it to COMICS! Fuck the first Batman and Superman comics. that was, like, 80 years ago! It's not written in Old English, but it's old English. Don't read that shit.

3. What the fuck is the Loop? Point is, Shakespeare's works have lasted a long time, and people still find it to be good entertainment and a teaching tool. It's also fucking interesting to some people to read dead guys' stuff.

Now I'm done.; August 26, 2011 1:49 PM
XantesFire said...: 1.okay, sure, what does that have to do with learning Shakespeare?

2. There are certain things a person needs to learn. How to cross a street, how to put on pants, how to eat, how to get the right change back, what is gravity and why you shouldn't leap out high windows, but do you really think Shakespeare is one of them.

The point of teaching Shakespeare is about taking a peek at how someone wrote in another time period, how writing has changed, and what writing was popular for that time. And we have to read the whole book? Okay maybe but don't call it "great." And don't tell me I had to like it.

Are you anti-diversity? Not really but did I have to have been forced read 3 Shakespeare books? I like Poe, Orwell, Asimov, Farmer, Blume, Homer, that's diverse.

Blah, blah, it's not hard, it's boring. Over and over.

I'm not saying it's not important, I'm saying it shouldn't be taught as a main topic but as an elective because it's not actually important (guess I am.)

But it's in basic English. And comics are an elective. You choose and it's not forced on you.

3.The reason these works became "great" is not thru a scientific principal but by an opinion and indoctrination loop.
-These works are taught as "great" in schools by teachers who think these works are "great."
-The students learn to appreciate that these are the "greats.
-The students become teachers believing these are the "greats."
-The students/now teachers teach these works are "great."
-Those who don't agree usually do not become literary teachers because the "greats" do not interest them. Nor bother to show up at meeting where the "greats" are proclaimed as "great.; August 26, 2011 8:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Wait, so reading all those other authors are diverse, but Shakespeare's not supposed to be included in those? What about the students who had problems with Poe or Homer? To me, reading those works are at the same level of head-scratchery as Shakespeare is to a HS kid. Also, some of these greats are found to be boring to HS students as well. I'll make the point over and over: just because you don't like it doesn't mean it needs to get gone.

Again, you complain about Shakespeare not being written in "basic English" First off, basic or not, it is written in English. It's a book written in English taught in a class about English.

If a teacher has you "translate" these plays, that's a good lesson in learning through context clues. Learning the meaning of unfamiliar words through context clues is a very important lesson in English. What better way to teach that than to have you read a book that IS written in English, but in an older form of the language?

Old comics are in English, but from "groovy" to "fly" and all the "daddios" in between, old comics are full of language that you might not understand at first glance.

It's not just the teachers who think these works are great. It's the board of ed, it's critics over decades, it's historians and it's individuals. Shakespeare did not make it into schools just because some teachers wanted it to be taught. Don't teachers wish they could push their own curriculum that well. It's still subjective that he's great, but you read a ton of material written by the "greats" from textbooks to sci-fi.

It's total BS nonsense that you have to love the greats to become an English teacher. At the least, all you have to do is prove you know your stuff. There's no test of your loyalty to dead writers.

Let me put an end to how important Shakespeare is or isn't to the English language as we know it:

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html

Also, see the Shakespearean Sonnet, Shakespearean tragedy, his contributions to poetry and play writing.; August 27, 2011 3:35 PM
XantesFire said...: Again you miss my meaning, you accused me of being anti-diverse. I pointed to a few of my favorite writers to show I am not. Just my diversity doesn't like Shakespearean text, does like his stories since I admit to liking West Side Story. And my point about Literature is it shouldn't be forced on any one to take nor to accept the teacher's vision because it's opinion.

By today's standards, it is not "basic" English. Linguists do place Shakespearean Literature in the "Early Modern English" era. And it's only in English class because of the loop.

Again, reading old comics is an "elective".

Duh, they are succeeding in pushing Shakespeare. It's the board of ed, it's critics over decades, it's historians and it's individuals. And that is the loop. Board of ed is usually made of educators, and I should have mentioned, not all those who are converted become teachers, some become literary critics and historians or just people.

Oh sure, there are some English teachers who don't like Shakespeare or just don't care too much for it. Usually those types just teach what's there and what's there is Shakespeare. But it's the zealots who make themselves heard.

So? Words are being invented all the time. Need a word, get one from a different language- "Deja vu" or create one- "Cyborg" or meld some- "Frenemy." If they didn't call it an "assassin" they would just keep using "hired killer" or maybe used "Brutus" or "Booth" Or someone else might have adopted the same word from Arabic and we would still have "Assassin".

Shakespearean Sonnet, Shakespearean tragedy, snore. Again, for a few hundred years he was relatively unknown and we did well without him. And if he didn't invent it someone else would or it would have been rediscovered from the Arabs.; August 28, 2011 4:54 AM
Anonymous said...: I brought up comics as a comparison, not literally an English course on

It's hard to talk to you when you say:

"Why do we need to learn Shakespeare?"

"Well, he created a lot of words we still use today"

"SO WHAT!?"

Even on a basic point you wont give the fucking dead guy an inch, even though you set up the question, but you have zero intentions of accepting any answer. You asked what relevance he has to the English language besides his plays, and there it is.

I don't care how many years he was unknown, especially since he is known now, and we are talking about his recent impact on students and you. Sure, we did well without Shakespeare, but we don't NEED any of these fucking artists or writers or directors or any of them. Hell, we don't NEED electricity, but we appreciate that someone harnessed it for our use.

"If A didn't think of it, then B would have come and though of it." But B didn't think of it. Welcome to Earth Prime. Deal with it.

I wonder how you would feel if, oh, any other writer was taught as a mandatory course in English class. Would you be for it? Other big name authors are taught in school and you are "forced" to read them.

You're not absolutely powerless in a classroom as a student. I have seen students raise their hand and object to statements made by teachers. I've seen them express their boredom with the work right to teachers. It's not an oppressive one-way situation that you envision. Maybe you should have spoken up.; August 28, 2011 2:38 PM
XantesFire said...: And I didn't mean it as an actual course, when I called reading comic books an "elective" I meant that it's not a necessary thing people have to do in life. Thought you understood my contextual use of the word in this discussion. People choose to read comic books, people choose which comic books to read or not to read. I choose not to read Liefeld. Which I find amazing that some people still think of him as a 90's "great." Perhaps an influence (fact) but not a "great" (IMO).

A basic point that you have not successful convinced me on because as I explained, other words would be used or invented. We be humans, again, we create new words, and new meanings all the time. We don't call it "the thing that flies", we call it an "airplane."

No, electricity does have many uses, including making humanity less depended on the sun for it's activities. Able to do many things that would have been impossible or atleast very hard for humanity before.

"If A didn't think of it, then B would have come and though of it." But B didn't think of it. Welcome to Earth Prime. Deal with it. Again, sure might not think of exactly the same thing but it could be similar enough. Words are created as per need and ease. Concepts are created, lost, recreated, rediscovered all the time. And if not, we wouldn't know.

I did bring up that I was forced to read Brontes, too. Again, Literature should be an elective course with many choices and not forced.

Again, I did speak out and it has affected my grades and relationship with my teachers.; August 28, 2011 7:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Yeah, we use the word airplane, and some dude(s) came up with that. That's their influence, no matter how small.

We have VERY different views of school. A teacher could very well choose to fail you but a teacher cannot just fail you, especially if you find fault with them. Teachers cannot fix grades like that.

Lets say that a teacher did fix your grades. That's one teacher. You telling me that your teachers were mostly responsible for your bad grades?

Eh, agree to disagree, or whatever nonsense.; August 28, 2011 11:16 PM
XantesFire said...: What's to disagree? It's a mundane, natural and constantly happening occurrence. Don't you understand? If one word is not invented by one person another will be invented by another as long as the need is there or even when there's no need. That Shakespeare invented a bunch of words isn't a big deal. Do you praise the people who invented the words ,"modem", "fiber-optics", "septic tank", "fax", "cell phone", "audiophile"? But wait, those are new words for new things. Then here are new words for old things, "unibrow", "staycation", "tombstoning", "winterval", "recessionista", "funemployed", "refudiate." I don't praise Sarah Palin, so why praise Shakespeare?

It's easier for an English teacher to lower your grade and/or fail you based on their opinion than any other subject. "I don't feel like you properly understand the character's motivation."; September 01, 2011 9:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Except that it wasn't. Steve Jobs made Apple what it is today, and yes, someone would have been the popular computer hardware guy if he had not come along, but he DID come along, and he made his mark on history. You can speculate as to how things would have went, but things have gone in one direction.

Coming up with words is not the most spectacular contribution to the world, especially as the decades pass, but to make a lasting impact on the way people speak is quite an accomplishment.

What words (or anything) did Sarah Palin come up with?

I think English teachers have the toughest challenge with grading because they are teaching you the structure you'll use to write and speak in all your other classes.

I don't know if English teachers were fucking with you, because it's your word against them, and that was years ago, but a teacher has to be in the upper echelon of pricks to not be fair in grading.; September 01, 2011 12:59 PM
XantesFire said...: Who said anything about real inventions, I'm talking about words for meanings and things. Yes it does make an impact but again someone would have come up with something or it was unnecessary.

"Refudiate", looks like she tweeted a misspelling but instead of admitting to it at the time she claimed the "Shakespeare principle."

Sentence structure, and etc. necessary, put it in with grammar, spelling and writing. Can be a separate class from Literature.; September 01, 2011 9:48 PM

Podcast X

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Episode 114 - "I'm talking new, improved zombies."

49 Comments:

SUBSCRIBE!

PODCASTS

PODCASTS ON HIATUS

T MAFIA ON COMIC BOOK NOISE

T MAFIA ON GEEK BRUNCH/RETRO-CAST

T MAFIA ON PODCAST XXX

T MAFIA ON STACEY'S PODCAST PARLOUR

T MAFIA ON THE CINEMATIC ATTIC

T MAFIA ON THE COMIC BOOK ATTIC

T MAFIA ON THOOM

CLASSIC PCX