GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-07 > 0930819840


From: <Michelle.Murphy%>
Subject: Re:Subject: American Education [OT]
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 10:04 +0100 (BST)


John Parsons wrote:

>>"Spencer, it is any author's responsibility to see that what is
>>written is accessible and comprehensible to the widest audience. It
>>doesn't matter whether the author is an historian, an expert in
>>linguistic or literary studies or a physicist. The work has to be
>>comprehensible and explaining things carefully enough is damned well
>>NOT "dumbing down" anything."

To which D.Spencer Hines replied:

>But, in the crucible of practice, it fails miserably. The lazy
>student soon learns that he is not to be held responsible for anything
>that the teacher has not "explained" --- from the ground up.

Mr. Hines, I don't believe that is what John Parsons was trying to convey for a
moment. Remember, what most of us agree on is that if you insist on using a
different form of name than the recognisable "William the Conqueror", this
should be explained clearly in the text so that the reader knows who you are
talking about. I think that this is reasonable and fair - why would a reader
purchase or take an interest in a book about "Guillaume duc de Normandie" if a)
he does not know who this person is, believing perhaps that this is an obscure
early Duke of Normandy in whom he has no interest, or b) if the reader does not
speak French, he quite conceivably might have no concept of who this person is,
not being able to make the link between "Guillaume" and "William".

However, this is where Mr. Hines' point comes in about educating readers -
you're quite right, we should never be chary of teaching the reader something he
doesn't already know. If we were, that would indeed be "dumbing down". But you
can't teach someone if you don't make the 'lesson' clear. So if the author
clearly, explicitly states that he will refer to the well-known "William the
Conqueror" as "Guillaume duc de Normandie" throughout his text, he has taught
the reader the true, contemporary method of referring to William, and each
reference throughout the book will reinforce this lesson.

It's not useful if you don't explain it once. The reader has learned nothing,
and may be extremely confused. It's deplorable that some students refuse to
think, or to deduce anything that has not been explicitly explained, but I don't
see how else we can teach people unless we explain what we're trying to make
them learn.

regards

Michelle

This thread: