This study on reading levels among *English Majors* and English Education Majors is big oof.
You can read the actual study which is linked, but the commentary is a pretty good summary.
(The one point where I'm like "that's reasonable, tho" is when they asked the students to name nineteenth century english authors. If you did this to me, I would say "Charles Dickens?" and then my mind would go blank.)
The text they test the students on *is* very complex, but also, I repeat, *English Majors*
but also also: this makes me feel like 'yeah, no wonder [book which is currently popular] is popular. Its complexity is at one.'
Also if you're like, "I too am confused about the megalosaurus" you need to know, like six things about the history of paleontology to get that one:
At this point, people were just starting to dig up dinosaur fossils and were realizing "damn, this sure isn't the fossil of anything that exists, what's that about?"
Leads to conclusion: "Ah these were animals that didn't get onto the ark! The proves the existence of the biblical flood!"
So he's saying the mud was so bad it was like unto the flood described in Genesis, and also linking it to the recent fascination with the newly discovered dinosaurs.
@Betty Oh, thanks, I personally did not spontaneously draw that conclusion either :D just thought "ok primordial muck is especially mucky maybe".
But I also think there's a bit of a difference between saying "wtf is he doing with the dinosaur imagery, I don't get that" and not at all getting that it's a figure of speech.
@Antimony Yeah, it's like if I said "the riverside was such a scene of animal exuberance and pageantry that one half expected to encounter Lady Gaga displaying her plumage." He's making a metaphor about a popular thing!
But yeah, some of the stuff, people are like "IDK, some kind of court, maybe it will be important later," which seems like a reasonable level of not being too bothered by the details, but some of it is extremely just. Not understanding the whole sentence or paragraph.
@Betty I read the first seven paragraphs of the text and honestly, although it’s certainly fun writing to read, I wasn’t sure what needed to be ‘translated’ in it. :-/ The weather was cold, wet and foggy all over London and the home counties, which was fitting to the moral state of the Chancery Court, which ruins those who are unfortunate enough to have to deal with it. That’s… it?
Having said that: I did not recognise off the top of my head that the megalodon was a reference to fossils being considered the remains of animals that missed the Ark, and I don’t specifically know what the Court of Chancery is, though (given that this is Bleak House) I think it’s something to do with adjudicating the outcome of wills and inheritances. So perhaps there are other things I’m missing!
(I started to read Bleak House once, but didn’t get far with it. Don’t remember why. I should try again, or perhaps skip to Our Mutual Friend.)
@Betty no, wait, you know what? I had the luxury of reading quietly and digesting this passage in my head, instead of having to read aloud to someone constantly asking me what was going on. This is an annoyance I suffer more frequently when watching films and TV than when reading, and now I’m grateful that I *can* read by myself when I want to!
@villainousfriend @Betty yeah i think the people saying its fine if english majors don’t get dickens are maybe a little over-indexing on the headlines “cant read” and less on the studie’s “to the standards we expect for english majors” but the people critiquing the methodology of the study are 100% valid that format of reading sounds absolutely excruciating to me
@villainousfriend @Satsuma I think they might rate me middling, because my "translation" the first couple sentences would involve a lot of "some period of time, some guy sitting somewhere, vibe is ceremonial? Oh, it's November."
@Satsuma @Betty yeah, I’ve now read their examples of ‘competent readers’ and I’m still very confused that they describe restating what Dickens already wrote, plus being able to identify repeated metaphors, as ‘translating’.
I would get very frustrated by this! If I say there’s a lot of mud, it’s over-simplifying. If I look at each phrase that says there’s a lot of mud and essentially repeat it with double the verbiage, then say, “there’s a lot of mud,” I’m translating?
I’m not really quibbling with their conclusions about the poorer readers, but I’m very doubtful that what they require readers to do to be deemed competent is what goes on in the brain of a person reading. Then again, I did drop my English studies after 16 because I disliked this kind of faffing about, and I’ve often wished since then that I had more of an academic backing in literature. There may be more to it than I’m seeing here. :-/