Showing posts with label literature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label literature. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Graphic Literature.

So I'm teaching Macbeth at the moment, which I haven't taught for many years. Murder, betrayal, sex, sword fight and naked witches (OK - so that last one's in the Polanski version) Teaching this to teenagers? What could possibly go wrong?

I have lots of support material to wade through, lots of text analyses, lots of historical information, lots of commentary. Some of it is good, some of it needs culling. One of these is a comic...  um, I mean a graphic novel version of the play in modern English. I haven't yet had time to read it, due to end of semester marking and report writing. I have scanned it and it's really good. But there's a blurb on the back which caught my eye. It's a quote, and it's along the lines of "If I were a Literature teacher, I'd buy a whole set of these for my students."

Really?  Why?

Aside from this quote sounding more like a sales pitch than a realistic review, why would students studying Literature use this text? A Literature course should be using the original version. I suppose it could be used briefly if they are looking at comparisons of the same source material. As support material it may be useful in some instances, but from my experience students can't take Literature unless they are doing reasonably well in mainstream English.

During the past few years I've been asked why we don't study more film/TV/graphic novels in English. And yet others have asked me why we do teach these forms, as though they aren't valid texts.

We cover these media because they convey meaning and communicate. We don't spend as much time on them as books (paper and e-book) because they don't use English as much or in the same way. Graphic novels use images to convey setting, and most of the written text is dialogue.

I love my graphic novels - everything from Asterix and Tintin, through Aztec Ace and Alien Legion, to Moonshadow and Saga. And they're as deep and as rich as many other texts. But they usually sit on the fringes of the assessable criteria of English as a subject.

Don't worry, though. There are units available for students which do cover these forms.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

And To My Wife, Without Whom...

Why is it everybody wants to be listed in the credits of a film? I was watching a film from the 60s a few nights ago, and suddenly realised how short the credits were back then. These days film credits are long, and possibly have more names than the greater Melbourne phone books.

Someone told me that it's a union thing, that the various jobs and people who work them must get listed on the credits.  Everybody from the lady who makes the cheese sandwiches, to the drivers who ferry actors back and forth, right up to the accountants who work out the payroll.  And they must do this?

Really?  Or is it just that we all have some weird perception of what constitutes 'fame'? I have news for you.  The credits now are so long that people only stay to look at them if they want to know the name of a song they heard during the show. Nobody remembers the insurance salesman from The Phantom Menace.


Why doesn't this happen in other businesses?  I mean, when I buy a light bulb, why doesn't it come with a list of all the people involved in the production process?

Payroll - John Michaels
Quality Control - Frank Peters
Sweeping Up - Geoff McKenzie

... and so on.

Films and music both seem to artistically be similar, yet albums generally don't come with every name involved, all the guys at the pressing plant and so on. And literature is similar too. So, maybe, when I finally get a book published, I'll start a new trend.  Five extra pages dedicated to the people who made me lunch, refilled the ink at the printers, designed the font used, washed my car and even cut my hair.

Or maybe I'll just wait until I sell the film rights.