Funambulism is a Greek word meaning tightrope walker. Rope walkers in ancient Greece and Rome couldn’t get into the Olympics, but their skills instead entered the show business arena. Over the centuries, competition among these acrobats led to the development of other acts, such as the flying trapeze and other aerial stunts, and also led to ever greater stunts, like walking a wire above Niagara Falls.
In the 1800s everyone wanted to walk across Niagara Falls. The first to do so was Jean François Gravelet, known as the Great Blondin, who was the most famous wire-walker of the time. He crossed the Falls in 1859, pausing in the middle to sit down and drink a beer he pulled up on a rope from the Maid of the Mist. He would return to the Falls again and again, doing crazier highwire stunts each time: riding a bicycle across, cooking an omelet in the middle, going across blindfolded or on stilts, and even carrying his manager across on his back. Next up was the Great Farini (né William Leonard Hunt), one of the most celebrated acrobats in Europe at the time. He duplicated many of the Great Blondin's stunts, and his coup de grâce in 1860 was crossing the Falls with a washing machine strapped to his back; in the middle he stopped to wash several handkerchiefs, which he then gave to his waiting admirers. Maria Spelterini, a circus performer from the age of 3, was the first woman to wire-walk across the Falls, and she also did it many times — once with her wrists and ankles manacled, once with a paper bag over her head, and once with peach baskets on her feet.
Maria Spelterini is pictured above. Read more stories of funambulists in history at Atlas Obscura.
Comments (0)
"Reader's Digest has an excerpt from another one of Frank's memoir"
memoir*s*
I will grant that it was a very creative way to get their minds working, but what might he have accomplished with students who already possessed the minimum skills expected of them?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/books/20frank.html
McCourt began teaching at Ralph McKee in 1958, meaning this remembrance dates to circa 1961.
So, basically, it sounds like you're upset at the students' prior knowledge, which wasn't under his control (nor was it necessarily under the students'). Perhaps you think it's wrong that Mr. McCourt should have "had to backtrack" by actually teaching to the level of his students, just because that level isn't what you'd have expected them to know already. All the while you're condescendingly criticizing Mr. McCourt for "moving the goalpost closer," implying that he's giving up and letting them have it easy.
But it sounds to me like he was changing his approach when he saw it wasn't working. Sticking with an unsuccessful teaching style because you believe it's the best and therefore students should be able to do it - to me that would be giving up. Mr. McCourt was working with what he had, with the goal of reaching his students however he could.
***By the by, the article doesn't say the students couldn't write 200 words, it suggests that they were reluctant to. That might be an issue of motivation rather than lack of skill. We can't know for sure.
I'd have thought that everyone who knew McCourt would know that he was a teacher too - it's not like he ever kept quiet about it.
I'm unsure of what the story is here; an excerpt from his book is hardly breaking news, and this teaching method is practically textbook among English teachers (it has provided me with some of my best creative writing lessons). Maybe in the 70's it was new and unheard of, but now it's pretty old hat.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of McCourt's and I'm sure he was an incredible teacher, but this seems like scraping the barrel as far as stories from a man with such an incredible life go...
the dean was so entertained he walked us to class.