(no subject)
Jul. 7th, 2013 06:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatHmmm...lj is a little less dead than it was the last five days.
My mother regaled me with the Andy Murray Wimbledon Finale over the phone today. If you aren't a tennis fan, nor a Brit, you probably don't know that Andy Murray is the first Brit to have won Wimbledon in 76 years. People in the UK are apparently ecstatic. According to my mother Wimbledon and its surrounding locals were packed. Murray won in three sets, and each set was an hour long. She cried at the end of it - because she was rooting for him and it was a moving win.
Worried about CAM BOOT, apparently you need to wear a sock with it or there will be redness and wear and tear on the boot. Yet another reason to break one's foot in the spring or fall, not in the height of summer.
Finished watching the first six episodes of S1 of The Tudors - then went online to see how accurate it is. Turns out it isn't accurate at all or only vaguely. Apparently the writers took huge liberties with the text. To the point - that a noted Henry the VIIIth scholar in the UK was annoyed when the BBC bought rights to the Tudors a few years back. Can't say I blame him - it is insanely inaccurate in places. That said - it inspires interest in the period. Certainly inspired me to hunt down the facts. Course I've always had a weakness for European History - particularly between 1490-1850, shortly before the Victorian period. In short I found the Tudors fascinating, and the whole Renaissance. Not overly fond of the Middle Ages, or the Victorians. The Edwardian period and the Regency Era (which is the era most historical romance novels take place in for some reason or other) is also interesting.
I'm not sure why historical romance novelists focus on the Regency (this is apparently the period when King George III was deemed unfit to rule and his son, the Prince of Wales was given his proxy, declared Regent and placed in control of the throne.) It's not that long a period of time only from 1811-1820. You'd think they'd pick a longer period. Then again, maybe that's why? It's a heck of lot easier to quickly research a time period that lasted ten years, than one that lasted 50 years. Considering the other favorite period of historical romance novelists is Edwardian Era - this makes sense. It lasted from 1901 - 1910. And occurred right after the Victorian period. Women had more rights in both than the period proceeding them. I think I may have answered my own question.
The most glaring to date are the subplots - Cardinal Woosley's, Duke of Suffolk and his wife (the King's Sister - historically it was Queen Mary Tudor of France, here it is Queen Margaret of Portugal - which never happened),
and Cromwell/Woosley. Historically - the Duke of Suffolk marries Queen Mary of France secretly, after she's been married to the King of France for a year. The King of France is 30 years older than Queen Mary. Here, it's the King of Portugal, while the King of France is sprightly and young and a hunk - and married to someone else entirely. Also, Cardinal Woosely destroys the Dukes of Stafford and Norfolk, while begging favor with the Duke of Suffolk by convincing the King to embrace him and his sister. In the Tudors, the Duke of Stafford is killed early on, and the Duke of Norfolk and Boyeln convince the Duke of Suffolk to help them conspire against Woosley...by reuniting the Duke of Suffolk with the King. The King challenges Suffolk to an arm wrestling contest, when Suffolk wins, the King forgives him. Very odd changes. But it does serve to make the story unpredictable. As result I've no clue where they are going. Historically Woosley dies of natural causes prior to Anne Boylen and Henry's marriage or Henry's break with the Church, but I'm not sure that will happen here. Also historically, Cromwell and Woosely were close friends, they aren't quite here.
My mother told me a lot of this - because she'd just finished reading about it in Hilary Mantel's "Wolf Hall". Apparently Mantel does a better job of following historical record than "the Tudors" does.
That said, it's fun. Not too violent. And very sexy. Sort of a historical soap opera, and well written in places. Just not a show I'd recommend to history professors and scholars.
And no, I have no idea why they made the historical changes they did. I'd say that they just didn't have the time to research it thoroughly - except I was able to find seemingly accurate information in ten minutes flat. The changes they made are a bit mind-boggling. Since the actual history is more dramatic than their changes.
My interest in this period stems from the fact that up until the fifth and sixth grade, when I changed elementary schools - history was basically "The Explorers to the American Revolutionary and Civil Wars" and that was it. And it was focused solely on US history (except for the Explorers, and to the extent that US was fighting with the Europeans.) Lots of boring memorization and not a lot of new or even accurate content. I know because my father had a Master's in History and done post-doctorate work. Suffice it to say the US educational system in the 1970s-1980s was a bit slip-shod in how it taught history, math (this was new math which few people could figure out), and science.
Recently the poor state of our public educational system was explained to me in one sentence:
College pal who has a Ph.D in Educational Policy from Stanford: "I have a weakness in cognitive learning and how people learn - they don't teach that to us policy folks at Stanford."
Me: Wait..what? No wonder our educational system sucks. What the heck do they teach you?
Isn't the whole point of education to "educate" and in order to do that, doesn't it help to know how people learn and how it works, otherwise how will you know how to educate them?
Oh that's right, just lecture and give people a multiple choice test. I forgot, we're not human, we're parrots.
(You'll be relieved to know I bit my tongue and did not actually write or say any of that to my friend. Instead I wrote...that it seemed odd to me. But then what I know about educational policy I can put in a thimble.)
My mother regaled me with the Andy Murray Wimbledon Finale over the phone today. If you aren't a tennis fan, nor a Brit, you probably don't know that Andy Murray is the first Brit to have won Wimbledon in 76 years. People in the UK are apparently ecstatic. According to my mother Wimbledon and its surrounding locals were packed. Murray won in three sets, and each set was an hour long. She cried at the end of it - because she was rooting for him and it was a moving win.
Worried about CAM BOOT, apparently you need to wear a sock with it or there will be redness and wear and tear on the boot. Yet another reason to break one's foot in the spring or fall, not in the height of summer.
Finished watching the first six episodes of S1 of The Tudors - then went online to see how accurate it is. Turns out it isn't accurate at all or only vaguely. Apparently the writers took huge liberties with the text. To the point - that a noted Henry the VIIIth scholar in the UK was annoyed when the BBC bought rights to the Tudors a few years back. Can't say I blame him - it is insanely inaccurate in places. That said - it inspires interest in the period. Certainly inspired me to hunt down the facts. Course I've always had a weakness for European History - particularly between 1490-1850, shortly before the Victorian period. In short I found the Tudors fascinating, and the whole Renaissance. Not overly fond of the Middle Ages, or the Victorians. The Edwardian period and the Regency Era (which is the era most historical romance novels take place in for some reason or other) is also interesting.
I'm not sure why historical romance novelists focus on the Regency (this is apparently the period when King George III was deemed unfit to rule and his son, the Prince of Wales was given his proxy, declared Regent and placed in control of the throne.) It's not that long a period of time only from 1811-1820. You'd think they'd pick a longer period. Then again, maybe that's why? It's a heck of lot easier to quickly research a time period that lasted ten years, than one that lasted 50 years. Considering the other favorite period of historical romance novelists is Edwardian Era - this makes sense. It lasted from 1901 - 1910. And occurred right after the Victorian period. Women had more rights in both than the period proceeding them. I think I may have answered my own question.
The most glaring to date are the subplots - Cardinal Woosley's, Duke of Suffolk and his wife (the King's Sister - historically it was Queen Mary Tudor of France, here it is Queen Margaret of Portugal - which never happened),
and Cromwell/Woosley. Historically - the Duke of Suffolk marries Queen Mary of France secretly, after she's been married to the King of France for a year. The King of France is 30 years older than Queen Mary. Here, it's the King of Portugal, while the King of France is sprightly and young and a hunk - and married to someone else entirely. Also, Cardinal Woosely destroys the Dukes of Stafford and Norfolk, while begging favor with the Duke of Suffolk by convincing the King to embrace him and his sister. In the Tudors, the Duke of Stafford is killed early on, and the Duke of Norfolk and Boyeln convince the Duke of Suffolk to help them conspire against Woosley...by reuniting the Duke of Suffolk with the King. The King challenges Suffolk to an arm wrestling contest, when Suffolk wins, the King forgives him. Very odd changes. But it does serve to make the story unpredictable. As result I've no clue where they are going. Historically Woosley dies of natural causes prior to Anne Boylen and Henry's marriage or Henry's break with the Church, but I'm not sure that will happen here. Also historically, Cromwell and Woosely were close friends, they aren't quite here.
My mother told me a lot of this - because she'd just finished reading about it in Hilary Mantel's "Wolf Hall". Apparently Mantel does a better job of following historical record than "the Tudors" does.
That said, it's fun. Not too violent. And very sexy. Sort of a historical soap opera, and well written in places. Just not a show I'd recommend to history professors and scholars.
And no, I have no idea why they made the historical changes they did. I'd say that they just didn't have the time to research it thoroughly - except I was able to find seemingly accurate information in ten minutes flat. The changes they made are a bit mind-boggling. Since the actual history is more dramatic than their changes.
My interest in this period stems from the fact that up until the fifth and sixth grade, when I changed elementary schools - history was basically "The Explorers to the American Revolutionary and Civil Wars" and that was it. And it was focused solely on US history (except for the Explorers, and to the extent that US was fighting with the Europeans.) Lots of boring memorization and not a lot of new or even accurate content. I know because my father had a Master's in History and done post-doctorate work. Suffice it to say the US educational system in the 1970s-1980s was a bit slip-shod in how it taught history, math (this was new math which few people could figure out), and science.
Recently the poor state of our public educational system was explained to me in one sentence:
College pal who has a Ph.D in Educational Policy from Stanford: "I have a weakness in cognitive learning and how people learn - they don't teach that to us policy folks at Stanford."
Me: Wait..what? No wonder our educational system sucks. What the heck do they teach you?
Isn't the whole point of education to "educate" and in order to do that, doesn't it help to know how people learn and how it works, otherwise how will you know how to educate them?
Oh that's right, just lecture and give people a multiple choice test. I forgot, we're not human, we're parrots.
(You'll be relieved to know I bit my tongue and did not actually write or say any of that to my friend. Instead I wrote...that it seemed odd to me. But then what I know about educational policy I can put in a thimble.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-07-07 11:09 pm (UTC)It isn't as comfortable as a regular shoe, but so much better than a cast.
I have to say that 90% of the courses I took that purported to teach how people learn were not very useful or realiistic.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-08 12:56 am (UTC)So from my perspective? More comfortable than the soft cast (in that I am mobile and can take a shower without a plastic bag over my foot) yet, a whole lot hotter.
I have to say that 90% of the courses I took that purported to teach how people learn were not very useful or realiistic.
Were they text-book style lectures? OR did they actually show you different learning methods in practice.
Over the years I've come to the conclusion that the only useful courses are "interactive" ones - requiring hands-on learning. Either apprenticeship or internship, discussion, and written papers and interactive exercises/presentations.
Courses that are solely done by lecture and a multiple choice test are a waste of money and time. Just send me the audio tape or the text, I can teach myself.
What I wish they taught teachers and policy wonks was "hand-on" learning and why "multiple choice" tests do not work for a lot of people and are poor indicators. I wish they taught about learning disabilities. I wish they taught that everyone thinks and learns differently. That some students wander off mentally during a lecture, and that doesn't make them bad learners. That we all learn differently. Personally, I think this stuff is pretty obvious, but people are a bit dense - they think just because they test well and have a great auditory memory, everyone else does. A great cognitive learning course - would be to put the students in learning scenarios that were hard for them.
Eh...this may be one of those topics I shouldn't be permitted to discuss? Serious chip on my shoulder about education. I was diagnosed as audio/visual dyslexic (discalcia) in law school. When I analyzed my grades from elementary through law school - all courses that were taught purely by lecture and timed multiple choice test - I got C or below, anything that had written papers, essays tests, interactive discussion, book reports, presentations or debates or internships - B-A+. My brother similar. We both taught ourselves math. And we were the lucky ones.
Think of how many kids the system fails by its inability to think outside a box?
no subject
Date: 2013-07-08 01:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-08 11:05 pm (UTC)It's one of my main problems with graduate programs in professional disciplines. They get embroiled in their theories but never actually see if they are workable. I was a victim of a couple of academic educational theories that were insanely applied across the board in the 1970s and 1980s..."phonics" (which resulted in me not learning how to read until the second grade - when a smart and industrious teacher hunted down an old Sight and Sound reader - dropping phonics for about five or six of us) and "new math" (which resulted in me not learning percentages and fractions until my 20s - when a friend showed me the old method). Moral? We do not live in a one size fits all world.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-07 11:57 pm (UTC)Anyone does a better job than The Tudors at following historical record.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-08 12:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-08 12:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-08 12:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-08 12:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-08 01:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-08 10:56 pm (UTC)The first poem is to Anne Boylen.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-09 12:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-08 03:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-08 10:55 pm (UTC)Prior to that I was convinced you had to do it with base numbers...which you memorize. And I couldn't do it. This was the only way - we were told.
One of the problems with academic theory whether it be applied to teaching, business, or law is it really has not application in real life. But it does sound cool when you are doing a power-point presentation or writing a journal article.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-08 07:22 am (UTC)77 years. And oh, he deserved to win! (Also, he's from Dunblane, which you might not have heard of, but was mostly famous for the Dunblane school massacre. Andy Murray was 8 years old at the time.)
no subject
Date: 2013-07-08 10:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-08 08:00 am (UTC)Some of Heyer's are set even earlier - there is at least one in which Jacobites are a plot point (?The Masqueraders), and These Old Shades is set before the French Revolution.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-08 10:50 pm (UTC)The Eloisa James novels were Regency - 1811 is mentioned a lot. Heyer, I have no idea, I'm guessing Regency...because they vaguely mention the Regent and all is well with France.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-09 09:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-09 10:40 pm (UTC)So...
1965- 2013: Obsessed with removal of clothing and the male body, specifically certain areas of it, which are called various things from "manhood" to "package".
1700-1965: Obsessed with fashion and putting clothing on, and which valets and dressers do it. No one is ever naked.
There are exceptions...some of the much better writers liked erotica and wrote sex scenes prior to 1960s. DH Lawrence, Henry Miller, Anais Nin, and I think the guy who wrote Les Liasons Dangereux.
Very odd.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-11 09:27 am (UTC)