"But it gets them reading."

[Supraliminal]

Why people should read? I do, but why?
Is it somehow mandatory to read just to be a better person or to grow as a human?
That's something what the old authorities claim to be the truth.

If something is important for us, it's to think and use our imagination.
It's true that books provoke ideas and make us to ponder the deeper meanings that the author has included, but reading is not the only way.
I prefer talking. Having a conversation, not just about football (for instance) or small talk

 

[Dramatic Flare]

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.

No. I'm saying they shouldn't be marketed for profit only, when publishers know damn well its a bad book. I'm saying it should not be blithely accepted. I'm saying that teachers, the people we look to educate the next generation, should not lower the bar because of popular materials.
I'm saying there should be as much fluffy crap books written as anyone damn well wants, and it should remain fluffy crap. There are plenty of quality books that I don't enjoy, and likewise there are quality books that I enjoy that others won't. That's natural.

Phenomena such as, say, twilight, aren't natural.

 

[Xojins]

This seems kind of elitist; you shouldn't force people to read books they won't understand, like, or have any interest in just because they're 'more sophisticated.' People are supposed to enjoy reading.

 

[Dramatic Flare]

This seems kind of elitist; you shouldn't force people to read books they won't understand, like, or have any interest in just because they're 'more sophisticated.' People are supposed to enjoy reading.

Why do people keep insisting I'm using force here? At what point have I argued that people should be forcibly kept away from stupid books? At what point did people not notice the obvious link to Good Fairies of New York which is a mushy comedy book with nary a difficult idea?

Seriously, my point is in relation to the educator's acceptance of poor material as standard, not that poor material is the worst thing ever. At most, I have stated that poor material has no right being movie-making popular.

 

[Fire Daemon]

I think that reading (and writing) should be easy available to everyone. I don't think that books should be kept to a particular standard that only a small faction of people can enjoy them. The truth is that if people aren't reading their Dan Brown and Stephanie Meyer novels because their 'in' at the moment than it is most likely that they will not be reading. It is unfortunate that people act this way but no matter how flooded the market is with sparkling vampires, there will always be great new books being written and the classics will always remain.

I really would rather that more people read better books, I hate how the majority (if not all) of my friends read very little or none at all. If they do read it is most likely Twilight and it's sequels. I would very much rather that they read what I consider to be good books but I'd rather that they read some, rather than none. A society were very few people read is not one I want to be a part of. I don't want to live in a word were I have trouble getting my hands on books, were Libraries don't exist and the most popular book is the Bible because trashy novels are not allowed. Certain series being insanely popular makes the world a better place, in my humble opinion. It's still really annoying to see Twilight at the top of the charts in Angus and Robertson but if novels like Twilight didn't exist than it may be possible that Angus and Robertson wouldn't exist with it either and the written word was secluded from the plebs.

I would rather that the classics were more widely read but, what are you going to do?

War and Piece

Now that sounds like a complex jigsaw puzzle

 

[Arkham]

I don't mind very much when a third party says "but it gets etc..." It's when the person reading says "At least I'm reading." The people I've met use this as an excuse to read something consider poor while admiting they rarely read.

Ironicly I wielded this phrase when I started reading H.P. Lovecraft because my hometown thought that needing to learn vocabulary to visualize a story made it a bad one.

 

[BladeOfAkriloth]

So you're saying that giving an 8 year old porn books is ok, because it gets them reading?....... if the overall opinion is that the book is bad, and the only pro someone might bring up is the reading material one, then no.........

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Very good sum up Ninjablu. I especially like some of the hidden hypertexts.

I think the real problem is that a lot of people fail to see the hidden proselytism within these books. I'm quite a devourer of "genre fiction", but most still follows a basic Disney-esque morality of "Do unto others" etc.

Even Dexter is hardly selling the idea of the Dark Passenger.

The books mentioned though all carry some rather insidious messages (before you get into the fanfiction which makes Furries go "Ok, now that's just too far!")

Twilight is Mormon Abstinence Vampire Pron (And worse, boasts at this : Meyer's reaction to the Mogul's who didn't want to make the Twilight Movie was telling as she believed herself to be a Messiah of all young girls)
Harry Potter is a terribly Blue Peter-y look at boarding school with major areas of waffle, warfare between the "normals" and the "geeks" and generally projection issues.
Eragon is a copy/pasta of LotR and even Tolkien is not the most fair-minded of writers. (Any female characters in LotR??? Elves don't count)

And then you add in the fans.

Now, I loathe HALO. No excuses, no arguments, but I've no problem with people being fans of HALO because they just run around making PEW PEW noises and saying that HALO invented FPS's.

But the fans of these books are book terrorists. Not since the heyday of Star Trek have I seen people who are willing to cut you (no metaphor) to defend their book.

That's not what genre is about. That's religious belief.

This is where the real problem lies. Not in the "It helps them read" argument, but "It helps them find fanaticism".

If they just want to read, start them on "A Very Hungry Caterpillar" and work through "The Gruffalo", "Where The Wild Things Are" until you reach the heights of Shakespear, Austen or even Mick Foley.

Because I'm pretty sure that Jane Eyre could have Bella in a fight anyway.

 

[klakkat]

Well. There's a couple things at play.

First, there is nothing inherently 'great' or 'sacred' about reading. Just because it's a book doesn't make it fundamentally better than, for example, a movie. The medium a story is presented on only limits the presentation, it doesn't add anything to the story itself, which is the only truly important thing. It is important to be literate, of course, but beyond that there's nothing special about reading.

Second, there is only one effective way for people to punish a shitty writer: don't buy their stuff. Until mind-control becomes prominent (and it would pretty much remove any point to doing this...) there is no effective way to prevent people from buying the works of hacks. Reviews and the like help, but the only ones most people read are on the book itself, which are always good reviews.

Finally, I hesitate to say any form of communication makes us weaker as a country. There will always be idiots; there will always be idiots who think they're great, and both will want to talk your ear off or vomit on paper and try to sell it. Regardless, it's worth it to weather idiocy to keep freedom of speech and thought strong, even if it does mean many people start developing unhealthy tolerances to aspirin.

 

[Blurbl]

"Good" books and "Bad" books is a subjective term. What I don't understand is why everyone assumes that "bad" books are going to turn our society into a brainless husk. They're books that are popular because people like them, they are easy to read and deal with popular themes in a typical way.

Sometimes I feel like a provocative, stimulating novel such as 1984, Animal Farm, and (the goddforsaken) Catcher in the Rye. Sometimes I just want to read about dragons and supersoldiers and whatever.

Reading is a hobby, not an essential aspect of life as most of you seem to think. Not everyone is cultured enough as you lot to want to read "good" material, or deal with the themes they present.

Now, I loathe HALO. No excuses, no arguments, but I've no problem with people being fans of HALO because they just run around making PEW PEW noises and saying that HALO invented FPS's.

But the fans of these books are book terrorists. Not since the heyday of Star Trek have I seen people who are willing to cut you (no metaphor) to defend their book.

Woah woah woah woah. Thanks for calling me a retard, you generalising asshole. So it isn't possible for a mature reader to like a book, simply because of it's branding?

 

[historybuff]

My nine year old sister hates reading. She will only read totally ridiculous, terrible, stupid books.

So, every year on her birthday and for Christmas, I get her good books. Even though she hates it. With the thought that, one day, she might read them.

I don't believe in "it gets them reading" if they're over the age of 15. If you're little--then you can move on to better things but if you're a teenager...you're probably already lost to the world.

I read a lot though, so when people were saying, "I liked it, and I don't read a lot!" That immediately made me brace myself for something awful. And it was awful.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I think if we got our kids reading War And Peace asap then we'd have smarter kids.

No, I'm not being sarcastic. Really, I'm not.

 

[EchetusXe]

No. I'm saying they shouldn't be marketed for profit only, when publishers know damn well its a bad book. I'm saying it should not be blithely accepted. I'm saying that teachers, the people we look to educate the next generation, should not lower the bar because of popular materials.
I'm saying there should be as much fluffy crap books written as anyone damn well wants, and it should remain fluffy crap. There are plenty of quality books that I don't enjoy, and likewise there are quality books that I enjoy that others won't. That's natural.

Phenomena such as, say, twilight, aren't natural.

But teachers are not lowering the bar.

I don't know how things work in America. But in Britain you get one classic text, which an exam is based on. They are other things too, poetry, a play (we had An Inspector Calls). I forget exactly how it works because it was a long time ago. But in my case the classic text was Jane Eyre. There was never any discussion on what we wanted to read or any modern, popular books.

So if the kids are reading what they want in their spare time then how are teachers lowering the bar?

Also, publishers are businesspeople. They attempt to make a profit, nothing else.

 

[EchetusXe]

Because I'm pretty sure that Jane Eyre could have Bella in a fight anyway.

Five years of Lowood will either make or break you.

Actually, that is no lie. Two of Charlotte Brontë's siblings died at the place that inspired Lowood...

Also, this seems like an appropriate thread for this pic:

 

[Nemorov]

Ehhh... I'm really torn here, because goddamit, I want people to read a fucking book.

On the other hand, something a little more... I dunno, intellectually stimulating would be preferable. I mean even a bit more.

 

[bluepilot]

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.

Nope. I am not criticizing people who read `bad` books as such.

I was criticizing an educational system whereby teachers will allow students to only read `bad` books under the guise of `at least they are reading something`

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn`t school a place where you are suppossed to expand your mind by reading many different kinds of material from many different periods? Materials which deal with many different subjects and ideas?

People only have one chance at school (at least free school anyway). If you leave school having read only a limited number of materials because the teacher though, `oh, at least they are reading SOMETHING`, aren`t your chances of becoming functionally illiterate (someone who can read, but chooses not to or has no need for reading in everyday life and so does not read) much higher than someone who has been exposed to many different materials?

Don`t you think that teachers have a responsibility to do this rather than a defeatist attitude of `oh, at least they are reading`.

Plus higher level education is pretty much all reading. Someone who did not read a lot of different books when they were young is more unlikely to have skills such as skim reading e.t.c

...I read science fiction too...I do not think that it is trashy...and I am a girl...

 

[RRilef]

Just one question, how are people who never read supposed to know a book is a cookie cutter book, if they have never read before? You can't set a restriction on what people read or they never will. The reason reading has died isn't because of these books, but because no one is stressing hard enough how enjoyable reading can be. So what if it is a cookie cutter if people like it, then so be it let them read.

 

[EchetusXe]

If you think the world of literature is going to Hell. Need I remind you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_2 ($823,275,835)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_Truth_(film) ($83,718,135)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_Wars ($115,049,554)

I am no movie snob, I mean I love Will Ferrell movies. But come on. The medium of films suffers worse from your problem. Especially seen as every popular book gets made into a movie. It is even more profitable as you don't even have to be able to read to go to the cinema.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Woah woah woah woah. Thanks for calling me a retard, you generalising asshole.

Hrrm. Irony much? It was exaggeration to make a point.

So it isn't possible for a mature reader to like a book, simply because of it's branding?

I've read many books from genre trash through Shakespear and Pratchett to celebrity "fiction" and I've no problem with people liking any book that gets them through the day.

What I have a real problem with though is
a) People who then think "THIS IS TEH BEST EVAH! YOU SHALL DIE IF YOU DO NOT AGREE!"
b) People who hold it up as moral and realistic when there is a rather unsavoury message hidden within.
Edward only being able to have sex with Bella when she's asleep? Uhmmmmmm.....

TBF, I am being overly critical here and that may just be on the hype, so I'll suggest a few books that work alongside or instead of "those" books:

Twilight : The Chrysalids - John Wyndham: In a deeply religious colony, some children find that they are 'different'.
Harry potter : The Worst Witch - Sheila Mcullagh: A clumsy girl arrives at a new school...
Eragon: The Phantom Tollbooth - Norton Juster: A bored child receives a gift that allows him to travel into the world of numbers and letters.
or anything by Dianna Wynne Jones: Who takes Meyer/Rowling and shows them what a good writer can do.

Main difference? All the books on the right don't preach. I've just had it up to here with the new generation of "Epic Cosey" books. Almost as much as the "Miserybacks".

 

[Zukonub]

Harry Potter is very stimulating for young'uns. It encouraged me to people my written worlds with compelling and flawed characters, it helped me to understand the importance of intricate plotting. Shit, it was the book series that got me reading. It may not be the most well-written, but, for the first five books anyway, the plotting is brilliant and almost devoid of holes. This may sound a bit defensive, but I don't know why so many people compare it to Twilight.
So, I don't care. It's not too depressing for me, because there are a number of talented authors out there, even if their works aren't topping the bestseller list. Books like Twilight may encourage the shitstorm, but as long as there are original ideas, it won't conquer the world.