"But it gets them reading."

[Labyrinth]

In the case of shitty light fiction there's a huge industry because, simply put, it's easier to read. It doesn't take the same effort as working through say, War and Piece, or the acquired snobbery of reading and enjoying Joyce. In some ways people need to be introduced to better light fiction which can toy with a mind yet be flicked through on first go. Pratchett's good for this. Every time you read his books you get another layer of revelation. Brian Jacques was a favourite childhood author of mine because his anthropomorphic novels had undercurrents which interested me while still being a joy to read.

None the less you can't force people to enjoy complex novels such as Brave New World (for all I think everyone should read it at least once). Enjoying reading is a gift as much as it is a pleasure, just as enjoying playing an instrument is, and enjoying the ability to critically analyse.

So I guess what I'm saying is you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think.

 

[fudgebo]

Trash sells and frankly it should sell, most people read to escape, for recreation, you cant read some piece of literary criticism for fun. they are terribly boring. Chick lits, fantasy, fiction..they all sell because they are entertaining, you never here of Edward Said or Theodor Adorno on the 100 books you must read list and why? because theyre boring drivel by some jumped up intellectual trying to convince us not to like jane austen because her works encourage slavery and impearialism. I'm not saying you shouldn't expand your mind its just don't expect others to join you, free time is rare these days and people should be able to spend it however they want, even if it is reading popular trash.

 

[fudgebo]

Totaly agree with you on that.EDIT PRESSED THE WRONG BUTTON meant to quote you labrynth

 

[Dramatic Flare]

In the case of shitty light fiction there's a huge industry because, simply put, it's easier to read. It doesn't take the same effort as working through say, War and Piece, or the acquired snobbery of reading and enjoying Joyce. In some ways people need to be introduced to better light fiction which can toy with a mind yet be flicked through on first go. Pratchett's good for this. Every time you read his books you get another layer of revelation. Brian Jacques was a favourite childhood author of mine because his anthropomorphic novels had undercurrents which interested me while still being a joy to read.

None the less you can't force people to enjoy complex novels such as Brave New World (for all I think everyone should read it at least once). Enjoying reading is a gift as much as it is a pleasure, just as enjoying playing an instrument is, and enjoying the ability to critically analyse.

So I guess what I'm saying is you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think.

Right, and I have nothing against simple novels. Simplicity, on its own, does not result in a bad book. But bad books are almost exclusively simple with a few exceptions [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics:_The_Modern_Science_of_Mental_Health]. As I said in the original post, not every book needs be hard to read, or force the reader to reconsider their whole world outlook, but it should do something interesting. Like take fairies and set them up in Modern Manhattan.

Off topic, Brian Jacques was one of my favorite authors as a youngin' too, and I may be forced to steal that analogy in the future. You're not going to copyright it, are you?

 

[Zand88]

Criticism is a very useless thing.

 

[LockHeart]

In the gritty (but totally exciting and sexy) world of business cards, few things are safe.
...I feel dirty.
Like a used car salesman.

*shudder*

This investment is definitely not for me...

 

[Labyrinth]

Off topic, Brian Jacques was one of my favorite authors as a youngin' too, and I may be forced to steal that analogy in the future. You're not going to copyright it, are you?

If I had any suspicion that I was the first to say it, the thought still wouldn't cross my mind. I imagine many people far better spoken than I have used it in the past. Just can't think of any off the top of my head.

 

[Dramatic Flare]

Off topic, Brian Jacques was one of my favorite authors as a youngin' too, and I may be forced to steal that analogy in the future. You're not going to copyright it, are you?

If I had any suspicion that I was the first to say it, the thought still wouldn't cross my mind. I imagine many people far better spoken than I have used it in the past. Just can't think of any off the top of my head.

good point.

 

[messy]

The problem with that is, it only gets them reading shit.

Reading isn't like smoking crack - you don't move on to harder drugs later on, unless you're six, in which case, it's kind of expected.

But if you're past that and still reading shit, you're probably going to keep doing so.

Although if they never read they'll never get onto "harder" books later on. Also what makes a book "shit" is somewhat subjective. Although I'll agree something like Dante's inferno or of mice and men has more to say then "confessions of a shopaholic"

 

[Cahlee]

I think there's two type of readers, good readers and bad readers. Those who read literature and those who read trash. Good readers will always look down on bad readers. At least I will. I'm a reading elitist.

I dont believe in 'at least they're reading'. I think Twilight certainly has done more bad then good.

 

[ShadowStar42]

True, but the general idea is that most people these days consider reading to be "gay" (for lack of a better adjective)

I'm sorry, but seriously, for lack of a better adjective? Stupid, nerdy, geeky, for losers, boring, useless, dumb, lame...damn and those are just off the top of my head. You see, people who read, even when they're reading bad books, develop a better vocabulary and don't have to insult a percentage of the population for lack of a better adjective.

Would I rather a kid read Animal Farm or Cider House Rules than Twilight or Harry Potter? Sure. But I would also rather they read Twilight than simply not read at all.

 

[Daedalus1942]

True, but the general idea is that most people these days consider reading to be "gay" (for lack of a better adjective) or in some other way to be a completely uninteresting or unrewarding activity. So to get somebody to willingly read anything is a step in the right direction for society. The hope then, is that the person who reads something subpar, will eventually get the idea to read something good.

I urge anyone who thinks reading is gay to read a book called Roadside picnic.
You may recognize the plot of it being similar to a certain fps/rpg by a little company called THQ that was released back in 07. It is not merely coincidence. Still a good book.

 

[notsosavagemessiah]

True, but the general idea is that most people these days consider reading to be "gay" (for lack of a better adjective)

I'm sorry, but seriously, for lack of a better adjective? Stupid, nerdy, geeky, for losers, boring, useless, dumb, lame...damn and those are just off the top of my head. You see, people who read, even when they're reading bad books, develop a better vocabulary and don't have to insult a percentage of the population for lack of a better adjective.

Would I rather a kid read Animal Farm or Cider House Rules than Twilight or Harry Potter? Sure. But I would also rather they read Twilight than simply not read at all.

Yeah, i agree, but i should've clarified, these are the responses i usually get when i tell somebody to read a book. It's "gay". Honestly though, you're right, should've used a better adjective, but too tired to think of anything else. I had no intention of insulting anybody, you took my words out of context.

 

[Jirlond]

Literature and English is going down the drain.

The young people (10 +) all communicate in text speak and have somehow magically got some schools to allow is to be used for exams etc. Some of it I get the others I don't for example what is the difference between boy and boi? Its an unnatural evolution of language that will leave our youth stupid and uncultured.

 

[ShadowStar42]

A ridiculous comment, attitudes like this are allowing children to leave school as functional illiterates.

*blink* *blink* Reading the wrong kind of books makes you a functional illiterate...wow this thread if full of gems. Very few people start by reading good books. You may be the guy who's first book was The Prince but most people start with entertaining trash like The Tripod Trilogy or The Dark is Rising (well those were me, an early fascination with sci-fi fantasy). Also reading 'good' books doesn't necessarily mean you will continue to do so. People will read what they enjoy, for the majority of people that will be stuff that the average person on these boards would consider 'trash', perhaps we should not make the mistake of believing our own opinions are more valid than those of others.

 

[pirateninj4]

It's all a distraction to take our focus away from the grim reality of Space Monkies and their inevitable invasion of the US. We'll be too busy falling in love with Edward "I'm a prick" Cullen and Hermione to notice when they burn down our way of life and usher in the new age of Slavage.

 

[Dramatic Flare]

Alright, as a challenge to those who argue that starting on weaker books might push them into harder books, give me examples. I don't see it. I know it happens as you get older, I mean from 5 to 15 you go from not reading at all really to writing dissertations on what you read. But what about those who regularly stick to low quality books? When are they going to switch to trying a harder book and stay? your view is very optimistic but I can't really see where you are coming from.

 

[Hybridwolf]

True, true. Though I suppose someone who reads shit is less of a danger to society than an idiot driver.

Sorry, you were saying? [http://twilightsucks.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=fangirls&action=display&thread=5175]

If you have anything else you'd like me to prove wrong in a totally manly fashion, just go ahead and bring it up now.
I'm due for my hourly pec flexing.

Thats just disgusting, some of the things people have had done to them for, god forbid, not liking a book you adore. You'd try to kill someone for disliking a book which most people avoid?

OT: If someone gets used to something, they rarely change. Teaching kids that reading rubbish is good will mean they will keep reading rubbish and will more then likely avoid good books because they won't see it as a story or whatever, they'll see it as a wall of text. A good book is often the biggest.

 

[Pyotr Romanov]

I never had people go "it's subpar but at least he's reading" cause i started reading english books since i was like 9 and started "learning" english at school at the age of 11... Obviously i don't natively speak english.

 

[EchetusXe]

So what are you saying? We should ban books YOU don't like? Or just act snooty and look down on anyone reading a popular book?

This thread is so middle-class it ain't even funny.