lucretiamott

[lucretiamott]

[lucretiamott]

That's how they do that

[lucretiamott]

[lucretiamott]

Ah these children who always create problems for poor mothers....

[lucretiamott]

And At Night We Dance - 24x30” acrylic on wood for the Hi Fructose magazine 25th anniversary show at Roq La Rue in Seattle this June.

[lucretiamott]

There’s a quote from Bert where he says he‘s “known big bird since he was a little bird” and the thought of it makes my heart cry so here’s that

[lucretiamott]

Frances Featherstone

[lucretiamott]

[lucretiamott]

[lucretiamott]

One thing I found interesting that I haven't seen mentioned in all the discussions on this study on Tumblr is what the level of skill they were testing for is and what that translates to for the lay person. In the article, they state they are seeing if the students have : "reached a level of “proficient-prose literacy,” which is defined by the U. S. Department of Education as the capability of “reading lengthy, complex, abstract prose texts as well as synthesizing information and making complex inferences” (National Center 3). According to ACT, Inc., this level of literacy translates to a 33–36 score on the Reading Comprehension section of the ACT (Reading)."

Now if you like me lived in the part of the US where SATs were the standard rather than ACT and don't know how to interpret that number, this is the 95th percentile or higher on the test. The average ACT score at Harvard is a 35. The average ACT score that the authors report students at these two public universities was 22.4 and the national average was reported as 21.4.

While I agree with the latter additions about the fact that the POINT of the article was to test advanced reading cognition, I also think the spirit of what the OP was saying should be considered: this is not testing what the typical American thinks of as usual reading comprehension or literally understanding a sentence. I think most of us don't read books the way that 'proficient' would require when reading for pleasure and perhaps don't need to in that setting; that said, when explicitly being tested on close reading skills, can you turn that switch on?

'Understanding the literal meaning' seems to fit better the definition of 'competent' reading that the authors describe -- which worryingly 58% of subjects didn't even reach this point! There is a section of the paper where a student who is faced with a passage describing the Lord Chancellor being 'addressed by a large advocate with great whiskers' interprets that to mean a cat is in the room. And yes, my cat certainly can be a large advocate when she's hungry, but I think we can agree this is indicative of a reading problem!

Now, I think we could have a discussion about whether we think that students leaving high school should all have a level of reading comprehension that currently only about 5% do (which notably is also the % of subjects in this student who reached proficient). And if so, how do we achieve that when our education system isn't currently designed to teach the majority of people to reach that level? But we certainly should be concerned that 58% of college students don't have reading comprehension that is literal understanding of the sentences.

So I decided to read the actual study (link) - it's totally free. TL;DR: the study is testing how well people in the 21st century can understand the specific nuances of 19th century London. This is not "reading comprehension", they are testing whether you know things like what a "Michaelmas Term" (Wikipedia) is. This is... to put it politely, not a normal part of reading comprehension in any sort of day to day task. This study is exclusively about your ability to read and be familiar with the nuances of 19th century English Literature as a specific body.

The study structure was 20 minutes to read aloud seven paragraphs. So, while one was allowed a quick Google or a peek at the dictionary, there isn't really time to do any sort of deep dive - this is a test of whether you are already familiar with this sort of work.

---

Oh, but it wasn't just 20 minutes to read it out loud: every few sentences, the facilitator would poke the subject to explain the last few sentences. Not summarize, no: they wanted a full dissection. "Dickens is setting the atmosphere by describing the fog" was considered a failure of comprehension. The only explanation they provide that counts as a "pass" is almost twice as long as the actual passage itself!

It's not even really clear if they made it clear to the subjects that they were looking for this sort of verbose summary - the facilitator just replies "O.K." regardless of how detailed their response is.

I cannot imagine I would do terribly better, given 20 minutes to read aloud 7 paragraphs, and being constantly prodded to regurgitate the material at random intervals!

---

I really do NOT consider it worth reading, but here's a link to the original post for posterity's sake: https://www.tumblr.com/prettyboysdontlookatexplosions/783379386552516608?source=share

[lucretiamott]

Perfect fit

[lucretiamott]

it is a truth universally acknowledged that having fun isn't hard when you've got a library card

[lucretiamott]

Orange cat and orange sky

[lucretiamott]

by ryanresatka

[lucretiamott]

Ok so I’ve had this question for a while and I feel like you’ll be able to give me a good answer. I understand that we’re absolutely not supposed to support anything JKR does monetarily and I never intend to do so. However is engaging with Harry Potter media *at all* also something I should not do or is it only things that give her money?

Like, would there be anything wrong with me playing Hogwarts Legacy if I pirated it? Is fanfiction and fan art ok to consume? Or is engaging with the IP at all going to be harmful in a way that I don’t see atm?

Thank you for your time!

I don't really think a cis person is the right person to ask about this, but I also know that trans people are sick to death of having to field these questions so I'll do my best to answer this, if everyone who reads my answer will promise me that you will NOT use anything I say in this post as an annoying argument against a trans person who has a different opinion on the matter. Remember whose opinions are actually important here.

And look, number one, you can do whatever the fuck you want. Nobody can stop you. If you, in yourself, in your soul, feel morally comfortable consuming Harry Potter by some convoluted method of Ethical Consumption™, then go and do that, and own it, and have the strength to be judged for your decisions.

Trans people might not trust you - hell, I'll probably not trust you either. They might get angry at you, and criticize you, or roll their eyes and call you a fucking loser. If you have the moral conviction that what you are doing is right, and that you are acting in accordance with your beliefs and you are not doing harm, then stand by that conviction and face the consequences. Have that strength of character.

But if you feel the need to go around posting and arguing that it's unfair, that you shouldn't be judged, that you should get to be a special exception and people are unreasonable when they get mad at you... then that is evidence, proof positive, that you are a fucking loser. That you are cowardly, and you don't actually believe that what you are doing is right, you just want the world to affirm your fragile ego while you enjoy your little treats.

To be clear, I am not accusing you of doing this (you seem to just earnestly be asking for guidance), but there's a hell of a lot of people who do do this, and you don't want to be one of them.

So that's number one. Do whatever the fuck you want, and face the consequences with a spine.

Number two is... just fucking drop it. That is my earnest advice to you. Just fucking drop Harry Potter. They are children's books from the early 2000s, they just are not that fucking good or important. The Hogwarts Legacy game is live service slop; the movies are passable at best and their quality comes from the actors being better than the source material. Just drop it. Harry Potter has nothing to offer that you can't get elsewhere from better media with better authors, or problematic authors who have good grace to at least be dead.

Don't waste your life thinking about complicated ways to circumvent the moral problem of JK Rowling's rancid transphobic hate-aura at the center of the franchise, don't waste your finite time on Earth trying to thread that stupid needle. Harry Potter isn't worth this. Rowling is old, and shriveling from hate and mold fumes, at the very least just wait for her to fucking die, and for her political project to fail, before you pick that world back up again.

I speak as someone who read the first book at age 11, hyperfixated on relating to Harry, and whose entire cultural life was consumed by the franchise for over a decade. It is not worth it. You don't need it, you don't need the stress of trying to navigate how or whether to engage with it ethically. You almost certainly have an enormous backlog of other books, games, movies and TV shows you've been meaning to get around to, so just go do that instead. I promise you it will be infinitely more rewarding, and infinitely less compromised by stress and guilt and cognitive dissonance.

And while you're at it, send some money to a trans charity and go scream invectives at a transphobic politician some time.

[lucretiamott]

i need feminism because when jesus does a magic trick it’s a goddamn miracle but when a woman does a magic trick she gets burned at the stake

[lucretiamott]

Ink Artwork by Endre Penovác