MARTIN’S POV & PRONOUN ERRORS in AGoT “PROLOGUE”

[evita mgfs]

Regarding informal “you” that will not die, I must quote Hamlet’s words while he tolerates his mother’s cries during the “dumb show” depicting her husband’s, Hamlet’s father’s, murder:

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
― William Shakespeare, Hamlet

Methinks, the posters are protesting too much.

Gertrude’s protests only reveal for Hamlet the truth of her guilty conscience.

Consequently, maybe there is more truth in my theory than even I thought!

[BlackFyre > BlackFire]

I hope your sister is doing well. Please share with her that she is not alone. She is blessed to have survived. Where were the administrators?

Can the Others be any worse than Ramsay?

don't get me started on the administrators...CYA time for them.

Good point. I agree completely, part of what GRRM is doing is showing the horror's that people wage on people while a true threat goes unnoticed. good analogy for what happens in the real world

[evita mgfs]

don't get me started on the administrators...CYA time for them.

Good point. I agree completely, part of what GRRM is doing is showing the horror's that people wage on people while a true threat goes unnoticed. good analogy for what happens in the real world

Har! Caught your post in the redundant Rickon thread. Loved the Shaggydog has no fingers!

I had bus duty - I volunteered for it. Two boys fought - no one came to help. I tried to break it up, and ended up in the hospital. I had to go to court to testify - you bet the admins were all there to put on a show!

I told the judge no one came to my aid. Har! I put a target on my back!

[three-eyed monkey]

hehe...i LOVE how people get so upset and defend GRRM's writing. Fact is, this is the most common mistake writers make in third person limited.

Sure something like the "You could taste it" line could be explained away as a colloquial expression, but it happens too frequently and every time it occurs when most writer's make the mistake.

Probably GRRM made a mistake and at that stage of his career his editor wasn't good enough to catch it.

It might be a very common mistake amongst novice writers, but I doubt it is common amongst professionals to be honest. It's like saying multiplying is the most common mistake mathematicians make when trying to divide. I just can't see GRRM and his editors, plural, missing the wrong pronoun, if that even was the case, which it's not, because it is clearly not a mistake.

Look at the first example in context to the rest of the sentence. "It is hard to take orders from a man you laughed at it your cups, Will reflected..." The only reason he adds "Will reflected" is to qualify the change of tense, (is instead of was), and the pronoun, (you instead of he). So where's the mistake?

Some of the examples show the use of generic you, which is the casual form of one. Again, where is the mistake?

Thank you, my dear, for the most excellent forensic analysis.

I bow down to you as an expert with a voice of reason who sees both maybe even all sides of an argument.

I wish to attempt to make an allusion to theatre as an explanation for shifting POV.

There is an expression called breaking the fourth wall: The restrictions of the fourth wall were challenged in 20th-century theatre.^[3] Speaking directly to, otherwise acknowledging or doing something to the audience through this imaginary wall or, in film and television, through a camera is known as "breaking the fourth wall". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_wall

Since I have directed and mounted stage productions, I am familiar with breaking this imaginary wall.

When Martin uses you in his narrative, I think theatre so this may also have had an influence on my discovery.

Thanks Evita, but I'm far from an expert in anything, I assure you. I'm not even a grammar nazi, as Free Northman Reborn subtly suggested earlier. I do love books though. And writing. And the craft of storytelling in general.

All I can say about GRRM's use of poetic language is that I love it. The man is a genius storyteller, in my opinion, and I'm not sure my little brain could even begin to comprehend these multi-layered novels in their entirety, despite all I've learned from posters far smarter than I since coming to this forum.

I think you really do touch on something in your OP, even if I don't agree that the use of "you" constitutes a change of POV. What it does show is the importance of the selection of words when constructing a sentence. Using you instead of one is not only less clunky, (one laughed at in one's cups), but it also makes it more personal. It might not seem like much, but all these little things add up to drawing the reader into the characters and the world those characters inhabit. So you are right that by choosing "you" he is speaking more directly to the reader, and inviting them to reflect on the same thing as Will, without ever needing to break the fourth wall. Breaking the fourth wall is little more than a cheesy gimmick when it comes to novel writing. It's different for a playwright. But speaking directly to the reader is very important, and GRRM relies on a number of tried-and-tested methods to do that, as you perceptively alluded to in your OP.

I've debated the issue of breaking the fourth wall on this forum before, with regard to the epilogue in ADwD. Some readers suggest that Varys is breaking the fourth wall when talking to a dying Kevan. The argument is that it can't be for the benefit of Kevan, who is dying, so it must be for the benefit of the reader. I agree with the latter part because every word of every book ever published is for the benefit of the reader. The question is, why would Varys, or any character, suddenly engage the reader directly? From an in-universe point of view that would be ridiculous, in my opinion. GRRM is using the conversation to impart information, truthful or not, to the reader, but it is framed as a conversation between two in-universe characters, not between Varys and the reader. GRRM is striving to keep his universe as real as possible, and having characters who know they are characters in a book would simply demolish that. He can't afford to break the fourth wall, and even if he could he has no need to. I'm not very familiar with stage writing, but I imagine the purpose of an aside is to inform the audience and/or involve the audience. Well, a novelist has to rely on other methods to achieve these things, like constructing conversations between characters to inform readers, and carefully constructing sentences with the right words to involve readers.

Edit. Just removed a poor example I used.

[evita mgfs]

It might be a very common mistake amongst novice writers, but I doubt it is common amongst professionals to be honest. It's like saying multiplying is the most common mistake mathematicians make when trying to divide. I just can't see GRRM and his editors, plural, missing the wrong pronoun, if that even was the case, which it's not, because it is clearly not a mistake.

Look at the first example in context to the rest of the sentence. "It is hard to take orders from a man you laughed at it your cups, Will reflected..." The only reason he adds "Will reflected" is to qualify the change of tense, (is instead of was), and the pronoun, (you instead of he). So where's the mistake?

Some of the examples show the use of generic you, which is the casual form of one. Again, where is the mistake?

Thanks Evita, but I'm far from an expert in anything, I assure you. I'm not even a grammar nazi, as Free Northman Reborn subtly suggested earlier. I do love books though. And writing. And the craft of storytelling in general.

All I can say about GRRM's use of poetic language is that I love it. The man is a genius storyteller, in my opinion, and I'm not sure my little brain could even begin to comprehend these multi-layered novels in their entirety, despite all I've learned from posters far smarter than I since coming to this forum.

I think you really do touch on something in your OP, even if I don't agree that the use of "you" constitutes a change of POV. What it does show is the importance of the selection of words when constructing a sentence. Using you instead of one is not only less clunky, (one laughed at in one's cups), but it also makes it more personal. It might not seem like much, but all these little things add up to drawing the reader into the characters and the world those characters inhabit. So you are right that by choosing "you" he is speaking more directly to the reader, and inviting them to reflect on the same thing as Will, without ever needing to break the fourth wall. Breaking the fourth wall is little more than a cheesy gimmick when it comes to novel writing. It's different for a playwright. But speaking directly to the reader is very important, and GRRM relies on a number of tried-and-tested methods to do that, as you perceptively alluded to in your OP.

I've debated the issue of breaking the fourth wall on this forum before, with regard to the epilogue in ADwD. Some readers suggest that Varys is breaking the fourth wall when talking to a dying Kevan. The argument is that it can't be for the benefit of Kevan, who is dying, so it must be for the benefit of the reader. I agree with the latter part because every word of every book ever published is for the benefit of the reader. The question is, why would Varys, or any character, suddenly engage the reader directly? From an in-universe point of view that would be ridiculous, in my opinion. GRRM is using the conversation to impart information, truthful or not, to the reader, but it is framed as a conversation between two in-universe characters, not between Varys and the reader. GRRM is striving to keep his universe as real as possible, and having characters who know they are characters in a book would simply demolish that. He can't afford to break the fourth wall, and even if he could he has no need to. I'm not very familiar with stage writing, but I imagine the purpose of an aside is to inform the audience and/or involve the audience. Well, a novelist has to rely on other methods to achieve these things, like constructing conversations between characters to inform readers, and carefully constructing sentences with the right words to involve readers.

Edit. Just removed a poor example I used.

W :bowdown: hat a lovely response! :cheers:

Regarding Varys speaking to the reader: I have traced the theatre motif from the beginning of AGoT. Do you know Arya makes faces from her first appearance. Ned wears a lord and a father face. Too many to count.

After Mercy, Martin embraces theatre directly - not figuratively.

Perhaps Varys is using the "aside" - with a strong theatre motif, it stands to reason Martin may be using theatrical conventions. Shakespeare is famous for asides. Iago confessing to the audience "I hate that Moor!"

Sort of like James Joyce - one chapter "The Sirens" is a symphony of words; another banner headlines to echo a newspaper office. When Molly gets her monthly, Joyce marks it with a period that takes up the whole page.

Actually, Leopold Bloom's first narrative is from a toilet while he is taking a dump!

Perhaps Martin is mixing it up as well. Bran is becoming more magical - the language becomes more lyrical and obtuse.

I don't know - just a possibility.

But I am going to borrow your evidence to add to my theatre essays - I will give you credit. I think it is a brilliant catch, and one that Martin may have done deliberately to make a nod to the theatre.

I was going over old posts of mine, and I saw we have met before in other threads! You are quite brilliant and insightful - and you are an excellent writer with clear articulation and a keen understanding of human nature.

I agree with all you say about Martin. He is brilliant - his novels multidimensional.

I "feel" he loves theatre - look how many cathartic deaths he has given us?

I cried the hardest when Ghost and Jon reunited after being separated - Har! People can die - but I am a sucker for those pups!

I went through catharsis during and after Arya at HarrenHell - I felt her pain, and later I itched with her fleas and lice and bed bugs.

During Martin's description of scenes at the Wall, I have to wear a coat and cover with a blanket - so evocative are his words. He makes my teeth chatter.

The truth is - we love him because of how he makes us feel about his characters. You and I and others find meaning in his manipulation of the language. We'd do him a disservice if we did not appreciate his motifs, word choices, red herrings, and so much more.

If you are interested in the theatre motif, I posted a great deal in the Mercy threads - where it comes to a head, sort of. Martin even bases his stage on the Globe theatre - its sloped floor, and more. I am fortunate I taught Shakespeare for thirty years. I see all those nuances.

One more thing - in Ancient Greek theatre, there is the Bloody Spectacle. How many of those have we had? Not only the red wedding - one vivid scene for me was Thistle gouging out her eyes and biting off her tongue - Yikes!

We can discuss more of your finds - maybe some of them are theatre related as well. It would be quite exciting, I think! :drool:

[evita mgfs]

3-eyed monkey

my theatre essays are here

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/109264-spoilers-motifs-meaning-in-martins-mercy/

[evita mgfs]

snip

Thanks Evita, but I'm far from an expert in anything, I assure you. I'm not even a grammar nazi, as Free Northman Reborn subtly suggested earlier. I do love books though. And writing. And the craft of storytelling in general.

Har! My son called me THIS!

[sweetsunray]

Evita, I have not yet read all of your posted analysis of this thread, but I commend your work and effort. I'm not convinced yet whether GRRM is breaking down the 4th wall, but the examples of the pronoun change and choice is very interesting imo.

Though, not published and most likely never will, I do write in English (though it's not my native language) and use 3rd person POV as well, rather than the omniscient 3rd person, and sometimes - though it happens rarely - I feel it's impossible to relay something without switching to 2nd person. At other times the use of "one does this or that" is better. It happens when expressing it in 3rd person feels too weak, when "one" is too convulated, and using "you" is just the strongest way to get the image across. It's like the passive form. It considered "bad writing", and I agree with that most of the time, but sometimes it works better than the active form.

The 2nd person in my case tends to force its way in, when I wrote a 3rd person sentence prior to it where the narrator senses/feels/sees/smells something.

Example: a scene where Joe is the narrator and meets and interact with Jane. When it comes to describing Jane's behaviour, looks, etc,

I could write by describing Jane directly:

- Jane smiled

- Jane crunched up her nose

- Jane scents of roses

Or I could write the same descriptions through Joe's experience:

Joe saw Jane smile

Joe smelled Jane's scent of roses

When a writer does the last, the author is pulling the reader into the narrator's experience. In one way it seems the author is reminding the reader that he's reading the scene from a narrator's POV, and thus that the observation the POV makes is not "objective", not "omniscient". But at the same time, because of this the reader steps into the narrator's POV, and becomes one. And that is the moment when a 2nd pronoun sentence works.

And your quote from the prologue follows this idea of mine

“Gared had spent forty years in the Night’s Watch, man and boy, and he was not accustomed to being made light of. But it was more than that. Under the wounded pride, Will could sense something else in the older man. You could taste it; a nervous tension that came perilous close to fear”

GRRM could have written: "Under the wounded pride, something else lingered in the older man." After such a sentence "You could taste it," does not work at all. No, then it would require "Will could taste it." Of course, despite it being mentioned in a POV prologue (and not an omniscient narrator), when a description is written as direct as that, it intuitively becomes more of a factual statement to the reader, rather than a subjective impression of the narrator. And there is no objective way from a POV narration to make statements of what goes on underneath the surface of another person.

So instead he wrote: "Under the wounded pride, Will could sense something else in the older man." It's the only correct way to treat something that cannot but be a subjective experience from the POV narrator correctly. Since we are already in Will's mind sensing something else in the older man, it would read superfluous if would be followed by, "Will could taste it." The reader is already pulled in Will. GRRM then has two options. Either he writes "I can taste it" (Will thinking), or "You could taste it" to the reader in Will's mind. But "I can taste a nervous tension that comes perilous close to fear" is not something a person would experience as a conscious thought. So, that only leaves "You could taste it."

Yes it speaks to the reader, but only in the most intimate moment of the narration, when you've been pulled into the narrator's experience of the world around him - sense, taste, feel, see - and when it's something that would just be completely odd to form a conscious thought about. And once that bond between narrator and reader is created, the next time "You" is used, the occasional 2nd pronoun use will feel like the narrator sharing an intimate secret with the reader, making it very personal.

[evita mgfs]

Evita, I have not yet read all of your posted analysis of this thread, but I commend your work and effort. I'm not convinced yet whether GRRM is breaking down the 4th wall, but the examples of the pronoun change and choice is very interesting imo.

Though, not published and most likely never will, I do write in English (though it's not my native language) and use 3rd person POV as well, rather than the omniscient 3rd person, and sometimes - though it happens rarely - I feel it's impossible to relay something without switching to 2nd person. At other times the use of "one does this or that" is better. It happens when expressing it in 3rd person feels too weak, when "one" is too convulated, and using "you" is just the strongest way to get the image across. It's like the passive form. It considered "bad writing", and I agree with that most of the time, but sometimes it works better than the active form.

The 2nd person in my case tends to force its way in, when I wrote a 3rd person sentence prior to it where the narrator senses/feels/sees/smells something.

Example: a scene where Joe is the narrator and meets and interact with Jane. When it comes to describing Jane's behaviour, looks, etc,

I could write by describing Jane directly:

- Jane smiled

- Jane crunched up her nose

- Jane scents of roses

Or I could write the same descriptions through Joe's experience:

Joe saw Jane smile

Joe smelled Jane's scent of roses

When a writer does the last, the author is pulling the reader into the narrator's experience. In one way it seems the author is reminding the reader that he's reading the scene from a narrator's POV, and thus that the observation the POV makes is not "objective", not "omniscient". But at the same time, because of this the reader steps into the narrator's POV, and becomes one. And that is the moment when a 2nd pronoun sentence works.

And your quote from the prologue follows this idea of mine

GRRM could have written: "Under the wounded pride, something else lingered in the older man." After such a sentence "You could taste it," does not work at all. No, then it would require "Will could taste it." Of course, despite it being mentioned in a POV prologue (and not an omniscient narrator), when a description is written as direct as that, it intuitively becomes more of a factual statement to the reader, rather than a subjective impression of the narrator. And there is no objective way from a POV narration to make statements of what goes on underneath the surface of another person.

So instead he wrote: "Under the wounded pride, Will could sense something else in the older man." It's the only correct way to treat something that cannot but be a subjective experience from the POV narrator correctly. Since we are already in Will's mind sensing something else in the older man, it would read superfluous if would be followed by, "Will could taste it." The reader is already pulled in Will. GRRM then has two options. Either he writes "I can taste it" (Will thinking), or "You could taste it" to the reader in Will's mind. But "I can taste a nervous tension that comes perilous close to fear" is not something a person would experience as a conscious thought. So, that only leaves "You could taste it."

Yes it speaks to the reader, but only in the most intimate moment of the narration, when you've been pulled into the narrator's experience of the world around him - sense, taste, feel, see - and when it's something that would just be completely odd to form a conscious thought about. And once that bond between narrator and reader is created, the next time "You" is used, the occasional 2nd pronoun use will feel like the narrator sharing an intimate secret with the reader, making it very personal.

:bowdown: :bowdown: Dear Sweetsunray,

Thank you for the fine and well-written forensic analysis. I sincerely ingested your comments, and you convey a scholarly tone that elevates your prose to credible. It amazes me how many people post on the forums who are using English as well as you, and it is not their/your native language. You can be proud of your efforts - from a retired teacher of writing and much more!

Because "taste" is a very important verb in the long-run of the series, I find the "you" shift within a 3rd person limited narration a little way Martin says, "Okay, readers, pay attention! This will be important!"

And, as you know, taste becomes a motif, especially in regards to "blood". Brandon Stark could taste the "blood" - "men are meat" as Summer eats flesh of man and Bran tastes it - and likes it!

I also believe that the WW use cold to kill those for their armies - the unsuspecting victims taste the cold and they fall, to rise as wights - taste is a theme that becomes more and more significant.

Thank you for taking the time to write such an inspiring response. :cheers:

[three-eyed monkey]

Evita, I have not yet read all of your posted analysis of this thread, but I commend your work and effort. I'm not convinced yet whether GRRM is breaking down the 4th wall, but the examples of the pronoun change and choice is very interesting imo.

Though, not published and most likely never will, I do write in English (though it's not my native language) and use 3rd person POV as well, rather than the omniscient 3rd person, and sometimes - though it happens rarely - I feel it's impossible to relay something without switching to 2nd person. At other times the use of "one does this or that" is better. It happens when expressing it in 3rd person feels too weak, when "one" is too convulated, and using "you" is just the strongest way to get the image across. It's like the passive form. It considered "bad writing", and I agree with that most of the time, but sometimes it works better than the active form.

The 2nd person in my case tends to force its way in, when I wrote a 3rd person sentence prior to it where the narrator senses/feels/sees/smells something.

Example: a scene where Joe is the narrator and meets and interact with Jane. When it comes to describing Jane's behaviour, looks, etc,

I could write by describing Jane directly:

- Jane smiled

- Jane crunched up her nose

- Jane scents of roses

Or I could write the same descriptions through Joe's experience:

Joe saw Jane smile

Joe smelled Jane's scent of roses

When a writer does the last, the author is pulling the reader into the narrator's experience. In one way it seems the author is reminding the reader that he's reading the scene from a narrator's POV, and thus that the observation the POV makes is not "objective", not "omniscient". But at the same time, because of this the reader steps into the narrator's POV, and becomes one. And that is the moment when a 2nd pronoun sentence works.

And your quote from the prologue follows this idea of mine

GRRM could have written: "Under the wounded pride, something else lingered in the older man." After such a sentence "You could taste it," does not work at all. No, then it would require "Will could taste it." Of course, despite it being mentioned in a POV prologue (and not an omniscient narrator), when a description is written as direct as that, it intuitively becomes more of a factual statement to the reader, rather than a subjective impression of the narrator. And there is no objective way from a POV narration to make statements of what goes on underneath the surface of another person.

So instead he wrote: "Under the wounded pride, Will could sense something else in the older man." It's the only correct way to treat something that cannot but be a subjective experience from the POV narrator correctly. Since we are already in Will's mind sensing something else in the older man, it would read superfluous if would be followed by, "Will could taste it." The reader is already pulled in Will. GRRM then has two options. Either he writes "I can taste it" (Will thinking), or "You could taste it" to the reader in Will's mind. But "I can taste a nervous tension that comes perilous close to fear" is not something a person would experience as a conscious thought. So, that only leaves "You could taste it."

Yes it speaks to the reader, but only in the most intimate moment of the narration, when you've been pulled into the narrator's experience of the world around him - sense, taste, feel, see - and when it's something that would just be completely odd to form a conscious thought about. And once that bond between narrator and reader is created, the next time "You" is used, the occasional 2nd pronoun use will feel like the narrator sharing an intimate secret with the reader, making it very personal.

Excellent post, and all the more so considering English is your second language (or possibly third if you're Flemish???).

[sweetsunray]

Excellent post, and all the more so considering English is your second language (or possibly third if you're Flemish???).

Dutch is my native language

English is my 2nd language, but at bilingual level, already spoke English at 10 before being taught, and I dream, write and think in English (rather than Dutch) since I can't remember. No objective reason for it. It just seems that English vocabulary and grammar fits my thoughts better.

Other than that I know French and Spanish. I completely understand French, without needing to translate, but when speaking I need to think about it for a bit, especially since I tend to throw Spanish in (I guess that would be Franish?). Fluent in plain common conversation for Spanish, but philosophical convo tends to go over my head. Also pretty fluent in Spanglish. :D

[Berric_Dondiedagain]

I am going to say something that you, as an English teacher, will absolutely hate.

There is no such thing as proper English. :dunno:

There is no international governing body which establishes the rules and regulations for words or word usage in the English language. English is a polycentric language, meaning it has several standard versions. The norms of standard written English are maintained by the consensus of English speakers around the world without oversight. These norms change over time.

English is an Indo-European language and belongs to the West Germanic group of the Germanic languages.

Old English transformed into Middle English gradually through contact with other people, generally acknowledge to be around the 12th century and continued until around the 16th century when Modern English appears.

During the period of 1350-1700 Early Modern English appears with what is called the Great Vowel Shift.

Webster arbitrarily changed how words are spelled to create an American English that differentiated itself from English English.

All the "rules", to which you hold dear, are just agreed upon conventions that can change, especially if he who sits on the Iron Throne (GRRM) wants to change them.

Englischmen peyz hy hadde fram pe bygynnyng pre manner speche, Superon, Northeron, and Myddel speche in pe myddel pe lond....(1385)

(my keyboard doesn't have a Middle English button, some of those p's are the p with the line continuing up.

Although, from the beginning, Englishmen had three manners of speaking, Southern, Northern and Midlands speech in the middle of the country....

Foxas habbao holu and heofonan fuglas nest (1000 CE)

Foxis han dennes, and briddis of heuene han nestis (1380 CE)

Foxes have holes and the birds of heaven nests. (1995 CE)

Foxes be inda holes and dem birds a heaven be nestin, Yo! (2015 CE) :bang:

So if GRRM writes it- its right!

Your friend in the History Department. :fencing:

As to your point, my opinion on the Will prologue is that the "you" was an informal "you", the general "you". You know?

[evita mgfs]

I am going to say something that you, as an English teacher, will absolutely hate.

There is no such thing as proper English. :dunno:

There is no international governing body which establishes the rules and regulations for words or word usage in the English language. English is a polycentric language, meaning it has several standard versions. The norms of standard written English are maintained by the consensus of English speakers around the world without oversight. These norms change over time.

English is an Indo-European language and belongs to the West Germanic group of the Germanic languages.

Old English transformed into Middle English gradually through contact with other people, generally acknowledge to be around the 12th century and continued until around the 16th century when Modern English appears.

During the period of 1350-1700 Early Modern English appears with what is called the Great Vowel Shift.

Webster arbitrarily changed how words are spelled to create an American English that differentiated itself from English English.

All the "rules", to which you hold dear, are just agreed upon conventions that can change, especially if he who sits on the Iron Throne (GRRM) wants to change them.

Englischmen peyz hy hadde fram pe bygynnyng pre manner speche, Superon, Northeron, and Myddel speche in pe myddel pe lond....(1385)

(my keyboard doesn't have a Middle English button, some of those p's are the p with the line continuing up.

Although, from the beginning, Englishmen had three manners of speaking, Southern, Northern and Midlands speech in the middle of the country....

Foxas habbao holu and heofonan fuglas nest (1000 CE)

Foxis han dennes, and briddis of heuene han nestis (1380 CE)

Foxes have holes and the birds of heaven nests. (1995 CE)

Foxes be inda holes and dem birds a heaven be nestin, Yo! (2015 CE) :bang:

So if GRRM writes it- its right!

Your friend in the History Department. :fencing:

As to your point, my opinion on the Will prologue is that the "you" was an informal "you", the general "you". You know?

No, I do not hate you at all. You are not telling me anything I do not already know. :cheers:

However, regardless of whether "you" is formal or informal, my analytical commentary is still sound.

I do wish, however, that I had not spent hours nightly reading student essay exams and papers. What a thankless job! I so envied history professors - and other subject teachers - who never left school with papers to read. The history teachers only gave tests that involved multiple choice answers, which they never scored by hand. They fed test cards into the Scantron.

So I have many regrets there - but I was an idealistic fool, a bit like Jay Gatsby. I did not get paid any more for my efforts than the other subject teachers who skipped to the faculty room at every opportunity, never conferencing with students or parents, always having fun and showing movies at every opportunity. Yep! I admired those teachers!

Now, with such movies as Lincoln and Shindler's List, The Theory of Everything and Troy - teachers of history and such do not have to teach.

Push buttons - press play - and amuse themselves on their cell phones until the bell rings.

Although one such teacher was foolish enough to use his school computer to look up kiddy porn. That did not end well.

Thank you for sharing your opinions. I welcome observations made by fellow educators as they know what a joke the school day has become. After all the drills - bomb threats, stranger danger, armed intruder, lock down, evacuation drills to locations near a mile away - there was little time to teach. :dunce: