>OP posts Moby-Dick re-telling for children
>me: "this is a terrible novel for children because its primary literary value is not accessible to children"
>you: "ACTUALLY this novel is GREAT for kids because it has a PLOT, and KIDS understand PLOTS!!"
Rest assured, I am certain that you maintain your high-school reading credentials to this day.
Let me sum & wrap:
1. I said that Moby-Dick is obviously grossly unsuitable for being re-told for children.
2. Three illiterate morons said "but these OTHER classics re-tellings are good!".
3. My moral obligation to help the blind compelled me to waste my time trying to explain that thing A is not thing B.
4. I am now lamenting the state of my civilization.
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Subordinate clauses don't automatically mean high complexity. In OT, subordinate clauses are mainly just extending sentences to the right. The dialogue is fairly straightforward. Many kids can (and do) read it -- though obviously it takes some effort.
None of this is really relevant to my main point, though, which is that Oliver Twist is clearly a characters-and-story book, and is in any case far more adaptable to a re-telling than Moby-Dick, which is experimental literature and loses almost all of its beautiful qualities if re-told. And that's completely fine, because some books are made for different reasons and serve different purposes.
You can read the texts here:
https://t.co/sMrxpkLubE
https://t.co/BXCVMeqgBh
@la50300057@katheder Oliver Twist has some paragraphs that might take some work for a young reader, but the most of the book is pretty accessible dialogue and short narrative sentences.
Regardless, Oliver Twist is clearly more appropriate for a re-telling than Moby-Dick, which is my main point.
@Hermitual@popculture72632@katheder 1. The point I was making is that Moby-Dick is one of the worst possible books for this, because essence of the book is philosophy, not story.
2. The person defeats their own point by citing Treasure Island, a book literally made for children.
3. You are a HowlingMutant wannabe.
@katheder What is the purpose of this book? The greatness of Moby-Dick is not in the story (some guys hunt a whale), but the detailed discussions on philosophy, character, man, and religion, topics well beyond a child's ability. Just get Dickens if you want to expose them to great lit.
@popculture72632@katheder Do you wonder if this path to "literacy" is what led to you completely misunderstanding my post? What do you think it says about the education system that you majored in English, but can't understand basic subtext or thesis?
@SpeechUnion Identifying as a cat is a red herring for the actual evil of allowing children's fantasies to become life-defining medical & identity issues.
A lot has been said about how the death of third spaces has affected young people. But the agony aunt, whose narcissism was previously contained to her church or book club, has now spread her wings to politics, with disastrous consequences for our civilization.
The cat-gender thing is a dead dove strategy which ultimately legitimises leftist ideology by allowing the left to make their core claims look relatively moderate. This is part of how ostensibly "right-wing" media mouthpieces unwittingly manufacture consent for the left.
@CamillaTominey The cat-gender thing is a dead dove strategy which ultimately legitimises leftist ideology by allowing the left to make their core claims look relatively moderate. This is part of how ostensibly "right-wing" media mouthpieces unwittingly manufacture consent for the left.
Moby-Dick is my favourite book of all time, and it's really weird to me that anyone who's read Moby-Dick would think that it's useful or even possible to "re-tell" it for children. The plot could be rewritten in 10-15 pages, and the book's beautiful, idiosyncratic style and prose is what makes it special. A child cannot meaningfully appreciate the value of the writing -- but that's the claim to fame that justifies the book being re-told in the first place.
@willsolfiac The answer is obviously that the government can easily destroy (the value of) your yields but cannot easily destroy the value of a house. The government will make your currency worthless with inflation, but is chronically unable to build houses at scale.