Oh, I'm sorry to hear that, Ellipses. Darn.
I suppose one could do a British
Poetry course relatively easily on one's own.
Let me cogitate on it further, as this was my dad's real passion and he, er...
inculcated me reasonably well in spite of myself. I
know that somewhere I have this massive TOME that he passed down to me which is a British Literature sampler/survey of sorts.
_______________________
Howler Karma, you mentioned elsewhere the distinction between gifted who specialize well vs those who generalize well; I wanted to ask you, having been there, for one who naturally should end up specializing eventually would you recommend guiding them twords resources and mentors throughout their childhood or do you think it's better if they are left alone to find their own?
Hmmm. Well, it's certainly an interesting question. I tend to think (personally) that the specializers are more-or-less born with a particular destiny that they then merely need to
find in order to ignite a life-long passion for it. Like a greyhound is born to run, these people seem born to a particular passion, too. Physicians and artists are familiar examples of this-- where the exposure to the subject of specialization is really the only 'push' that they need. It's like they discover the great love of their lives.
That's not to say that 'specialists' like that are necessarily one-dimensional. I know a fair number of them, and they tend (at least the HG+ ones among them) to be people that have surprising and oddly unrelated areas of passionate expertise: a cardiologist who builds his own vacation home and paints in oils... a physicist that writes poetry and is a licensed pilot, a tort-attorney that is a respected regional expert at viticulture; that sort of thing.
Honestly, I think it probably depends on personality alone. For some kids, any attempt to 'steer' their destiny is going to backfire, and for others, they WANT to be led. For some people, investigation and exploration seems to be a solitary pursuit, and a mentor relationship isn't really helpful.
My own strategy is to let my DD
try a lot of things, and see what catches on the sticky spots.
Where she seems
likely to develop a passionate interest, I'm willing to offer additional enrichment... but I'm being guided by
her interests.
What I
don't agree with is allowing self-guided specialization too early (as pure unschooling
can with those who have a specialization destiny)-- because we aren't the same people at ten as we will be at thirty, and learning
how to approach a subject is an important thing. Therefore, I tend to think that the basic notion of kids learning a broad survey of subjects/disciplines as students is a good thing-- regardless of whether they'll be 'specialists' one day. Everyone needs to have
some exposure to the thought process of historians as well as linguists, artists, poets, and architects. Even physicists should know a little something about sociology, economics and psychology. This allows you to live a more contented and fulfilled life as an adult, because all that exposure gives you a chance to
find your own sticky-spots and adapt to new ones throughout your life.
It also enriches you within your specialty, though that is something that most of us don't truly realize until we are into middle age. I'm a MUCH better scientist for my life-long interests in history, though that isn't always an obvious source of insights.
Generalists, of course, learn that way to begin with, and seem to need a vast canvas of information and exposure to make sense of it all. If generalists are developing knowledge like a lake deepened over time by melting snow and rain, specialists seem to do better with a model that looks like a snow-melt fed river, with tributaries pouring into it from several directions, though it is definitely headed in one direction. Don't know if that analogy actually works, but it made sense in my head.
