I know most people on this forum are big fans of the Heisig method, and have been studying Japanese for a while. I'm wondering if you couldn't use Heisig what other books / method would you choose and why?

Without Heisig I would have given up learning to write kanji. Recognition would be okay, but to write anything would be hell.

There is a system based around learning kanji using signal primitives from the beginning. Might have been worth a go.

I'd just learn Chinese.

The Japanese in Mangaland books.
The first two books probably explian Japanese better than anything I have read. (The Tae Kim website is a close second, very close)

The third book in the series is about Kanji. I thinks it is called, Kanji in Mangaland. It has its own unique way of learning Kanji. You can not mix it with the Heisig method so I did not bother to read and learn.

Intrestingly enough, there is an excert from RTK in the first book, Japanese in Mangaland.
The first 2 books have Kanji in them to learn. Between all 3 books, I think you learn about 800 Kanji, the most popular ones. It aint 2042, but you asked what I would use if RTK was not around.

Wisher

kazelee Wrote:I'd just learn Chinese.

Hahaha! I second that...

What did Heisig himself do when he needed to learn the kanji and could not find a good method for doing so?

He invented one!

Before I found Heisig I was already using my own similar system. I was actually really surprised it was so controversial. I didn't realize anybody did it any other way. I had these flashcards (Tuttle I think? Actually pretty crappy flashcards) that showed a breakdown of radicals/parts on the front and some English keywords on the back. I got through maybe 350 kanji that way.

The problem with my system was a crappy order and not using unique primitives. Or unique keywords. I made no distinction between 土 and 士 for example. When I learned 読 I remembered it as 言＋土＋穴 ("Reading is the dirt that will fill the hole in you mind with knowledge". My stories were pretty crappy too). I had to "just remember" not to put that extra line on 穴 and I think I never realized that wasn't 土 at the top. There was no real order either, I just tried to learn simple before complicated. It probably would have taken me a couple years to finish with a lot more small errors like that. I'm so glad I was saved the trouble.

I would have used Bodnaryk's book:

http://www.mts.net/~bodnaryk/kanji.html

playadom Wrote:I would have used Bodnaryk's book:

http://www.mts.net/~bodnaryk/kanji.html

holy shmoly - that mutated romaji is givin' me a headache!

...never could understand why anyone would put romaji in a kanji book.

I mean if you're taking the trouble to learn 2,000 Kanji, you could at least have tried to get 51 kana out of the way first...

kfmfe04 Wrote:

playadom Wrote:I would have used Bodnaryk's book:

http://www.mts.net/~bodnaryk/kanji.html

holy shmoly - that mutated romaji is givin' me a headache!

...never could understand why anyone would put romaji in a kanji book.

I mean if you're taking the trouble to learn 2,000 Kanji, you could at least have tried to get 51 kana out of the way first...

Yeah -- I've seen so much bad ローマ字 everywhere...

Other than that, the book isn't that different from Heisig -- in fact -- you could use it in much the same way, provided that you separate the learning of the readings from the learning of the meanings.

His book also teaches about 2080 kanji...