I just need to vent about this for a moment, as it’s been driving me crazy since about level 6. I don’t expect solutions, and I certainly don’t expect WK to rework their whole system to satisfy my preferences, but I’m sure I’m not the only one bothered by this, so please humor me as I blow off some steam by posting here.
WK purports to present a system in which radicals are presented as building blocks that can then be used to help us learn and remember kanji. That’s a great approach, and I wholeheartedly embrace it. Remembering the Kanji (RTK) uses this same approach in a very consistent, well-thought-out way, but I jumped to WK before getting very far in RTK because I want to learn readings for the kanji, while RTK teaches only a single keyword definition for each kanji, with no readings or associated vocab.
In RTK, any kanji learned can subsequently be used as a radical. And why not? You’ve already learned what it means, so why not leverage that where that kanji is used as a component in another kanji?
My gripe is that WK seems only half-committed to this radical building block approach, which leads to inefficiency and sometimes confusion on my part.
First, WK appears to have adopted a rule that nothing can be used as a radical until it’s been presented as a blue radical card. For example, sometimes a WK teaches a radical, and then subsequently teaches a kanji that is identical to that radical. E.g., 工, with the radical (blue card) and then the kanji (pink card) both taught on level 1. This seems a bit redundant to me - that’s two lessons to teach one thing. I can see where WK is coming from, and I appreciate the consistency of the rule, but it’s definitely not the way I’d have gone.
In other cases, WK teaches a kanji, and then subsequently teaches a radical that is identical to that kanji. E.g., 兄 is taught as a kanji (pink card) at level 5 as a combination of the radicals 口 and 儿, then as a radical (blue card) at level 11 before referencing it as a radical in subsequent kanji. Again, I appreciate the consistency in sticking to the rule of defining something as a radical before using it in subsequent kanji, but why do we need redundant blue cards for that? Why can’t we just have a note at the bottom of the pink kanji card that says “Hey, we’ll use this as a radical meaning ‘big brother’ in future kanji”?
If the only down side to this approach was the need to work through a few more blue cards, then it wouldn’t really bother me. But the real harm I see in WK’s approach is that many, many kanji appear as radicals in other kanji - too many to give them all their own blue cards. WK certainly doesn’t give them all blue cards. Instead, WK simply ignores that the kanji are functioning as radicals at all. I submit that this substantially undermines the building-block approach. Kanji that could be used very effectively as building blocks for other kanji are not acknowledged as having any connection, and are therefore often taught out of building-block order.
Here are a few examples (though I could cite many more):
花 Flower is taught at level 4 as a combination of 艹, ｲ, and 匕; while 化 Change is taught at level 6. Why not teach 化 first, then teach 花 as a combination of 艹 and 化? This would provide substantial additional reinforcement of 化 by tying it into a mnemonic for 花. (Ironically, 化 is given a blue card at level 27; I really wish that blue card came before 花.)
試 9 Try; 式 15 Ritual
線 10 Line; 泉 12 Spring
院 10 Institute; 完 14 Perfect
運 10 Carry; 連 19 Take along (what an easy association this would be!)
In some cases, this lack of radical association is especially frustrating because the kanji share an onyomi, which would be obvious to the student if the basic kanji was recognized as a radical in the other kanji:
努 11 Toil; 怒 27 Angry; 奴 34 Dude/Guy - All have the same reading ど.
館 13 Public building; 官 17 Government - this is a very easy radical association, and both are かん.
In some cases, WK even corrupts proper building block association, to conform a kanji to WK’s artificially small set of blue-card radicals. The following example was the trigger for me to finally post this rant today:
睡 Drowsy is taught at level 27 as a combination of 目 and 車. Really? 車 is clearly not the radical included in 睡. The form is visually different, the stroke order is different, the number of strokes is different. Also, the mnemonic presented for 睡 is mediocre, at best. But then at level 33 we learn 垂 Dangle/Droop. This is obviously the radical in 睡! What’s more, the meaning of 睡 is an obvious combination of 目 and 垂: drooping eyes mean you’re drowsy. To top it all off, 垂 and 睡 share the same onyomi: すい.
It blows my mind that WK doesn’t make this connection, but I assume it’s because 垂 doesn’t appear as a radical anywhere else, so WK doesn’t want to give it its own blue card. And thus we see the drawback to the blue card methodology.
