Before I actually start this blog post, I’m going to start this blog post with something.
Guys, I’m keeping the blog.
With all of that amazing celebrating out of the way, I can say I’ll try to be a weekly blog person about… something. I suppose whatever is in my head will somehow end up splattered on a post here every week.
Alright with that out of the way:
I want to teach the first Shakespearean Shop class. I would embed famous Shakespearean quotes within certain car parts. I would first place a few quotes from the “Tempest” in the windshield wipers, because it takes place on the ocean it would be totally relevant. The quotes would have to be discovered in the correct order so I would know my students followed proper directions I laid out for them.
For example, they would first find “We are such stuff.” Then they would find “As dreams are made on, our little life,” on the next step, before they finally end on “Is rounded with a sleep.”
That way I’m maximizing (hehe) their potential and I’m killing two birds with one stone. Because fuck birds who are allergic to stones.
Wait. That’s not all. Why should I not incorporate Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves into an advanced Physics class? Just imagine if I made only one number blue with nonsensical footnotes. I can see the questions and puzzled looks now.
“Professor ThatMaxGuy, why is the number two in blue in every formula and why does the history of plastic Gatorade bottles have to do with how soon a train will arrive?”
“Hey professor ThatMaxGuy, that’s obviously a canned response from a video by the author. Can you please tell me what any of this means?”
“This is your sovereignty and what you make of it is yours. Just keep it, Max Student.”
“This why I don’t fucking talk to myself on my blog.”
“Would you like to read House of Leaves: How the World Turns. A Physics Love Story?”
“You’re just killing space aren’t you?”
“Like you don’t.”
Well that was a tangent.
And here is why.
From “The Loss of the Creature” article of course. The author mentions that it would be a great idea to combine subjects. For example he wants to:
propose that English poetry and biology should be taught as usual, but that at irregular intervals, poetry students should find dogfishes on their desks and biology students should be find Shakespeare sonnets on their dissecting boards. I am serious in declaring that a Sarah Lawrence English major who began poking about in a dogfish with a bobby pin would learn more in thirty minutes than a biology major in a whole semester.
First of all: lol wut?
Second of all:
The concept sounds like something I’d make up with my friends for one.
“Guys…How ’bout a class that teaches you biology while you-wait for it-read various Shakespearean sonnets?”
“What?” “Would the sonnets be on the tray they’re using for dissection or something?”
“You know what?!” Points finger enthusiastically at friend. “That’s a great fucking idea, man!”
“I’d call it ENGBIO 486: Dissection of Shakespearean Themes and Amphibia.”
I suppose I can appreciate that the author tried to think outside the box and create new paradigms for learning a diverse selection of subjects. Although that entire quote feels like it was spawned from a weird lunch break discussion about how to consolidate costs and make teaching more efficient. It ends up sounding like a made-up scenario or an SNL skit because of how ridiculous it sounds.
There are more ways to learn and reach people, because of course there are, but can we move past the first draft of “Woah, dude,” thoughts and try something less…hilarious.