"But it gets them reading."

[Dramatic Flare]

(Note, the following discussion is based on a particular attitude though it does reference unpopular material. The subject is the attitude, not the material that already has a near uniform opinion formed on by the Escapist.)

Have you ever encountered this attitude? You're in discussion with a high school English teacher, a parent, or some other person and you are presenting a negative opinion of a popular book. At some point or another they offer a somewhat different view. This is usually summed up in "even if the content is subpar, at least they're reading."

I am very well read in a wide variety of subjects. I frankly enjoy mind candy [http://books.google.com/books?id=XbspqbaIgy0C&dq=the+good+fairies+of+new+york&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=tHdHyjv_0J&sig=uO1icTervSSUHCwthtrfINS_Uw0&hl=en&ei=8WiKSrrmN4GkswPd_sTADQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false] as much as a personal look into society's manual trade decay. [http://www.slate.com/id/2218650]

So my question is, when something really truly bad [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eragon] becomes popular, should not someone point this out? Should not a story's Mary Sue [http://www.stepheniemeyer.com/twilight.html] properties stop it from being good?

The only reason I can find that these books remain popular is their self insertion properties. I, like I'm sure many other kids, used to enjoy imagining myself as the central character or at least another character in the dynamic stories I read or watched. Everything from fighting off the Orc hordes with Aragorn to wishing I was Jackie Chan. But the difference seems to be I grew out of it. And I watch others, many older or younger than myself, continue to do. And this seems to be, "what gets them reading."

I can't see any good coming out of it, and certainly not better readers. When we have a high bar for reading, we can push people harder- encourage intellectual thought about books AND enjoy them at the same time. When we simply set the bar lower, certainly more people pass but its not because we did anything about it. In fact, I would say this is worse than pushing people to read, it's actively encouraging them to read worse material.

The fact remains that many bad books are produced each year. these books never see the light of day beyond those first few years. but then someone gets the idea of marketing a book and making a fortune despite its obvious flaws. This has worked, repeatedly, in recent history. These are books that are frankly dumb, they don't even challenge the reader with interesting wording. Now, not every book needs to be hard, but I do think every book should present something new. It should not be a cookie cutter of what the market wants at the time, or what is easy and accessible. These are "safe" books that are unlikely to offend people (unless they are extremists [http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/H/HarryPotter/]) and make good money at the cost of actually doing something. These are books that embody some of the worst aspects of our current culture, when you can look at people and just realize no thought they've thought was their own.
"Imagine books and music and movies being filtered and homogenized. Certified. Approved for consumption. People will be happy to give up most of their culture for the assurance that the tiny bit that comes through is safe and clean. White noise." - Chuck Palahnuik.


So, escapists, what is your opinion on this phenomena? Is going to lead to dystopia [http://classiclit.about.com/od/fahrenheit451rb/a/aa_f451quotes.htm] or will it work somehow, making America a stronger nation over all?

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

Would I be answering the thread correctly if I said I'd rather read a book that I actually enjoy rather than reading for the hell of it? Because I definitely don't read for the hell of it, and I've been lucky enough to at least have tolerable books for English class (at least before I got out of high school...) I read on my own, certainly, but I like those books. I don't care if someone else wants me to read unless my grade is on the line. I'll never take a book over my computer because my mom asks. If I like a book, you'll catch me reading till midnight anyway.

Edit: more non-personal way of saying this. If you want a kid to read, at least try to make the book good. Hopefully, they'll love the book and give them incentive to read even more. Feed them crap and they won't take any more of it. Hopefully an English teacher would have the mind to pick something enjoyable rather than something to make themselves look good.

 

[LockHeart]

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.

But still, they're reading. And they're not smoking crack...

Well I hope so anyways...

 

[notsosavagemessiah]

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.

 

[bluepilot]

No no no and no. Teaching kids that it is okay just to read rubbish and they will grow up reading rubbish their whole lives.

Get kids to read real books.

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

 

[Cowabungaa]

Reading is something else than appreciating books. Getting a student to read a book isn't that hard, just make sure the penalty for not doing it is hard enough. Getting them to appreciate literature is a lot harder, and isn't something you can enforce by any means. Making them read crappy books makes it even worse, since you'll only put them off reading for the rest of their lives.

 

[LockHeart]

But still, they're reading. And they're not smoking crack...

Well I hope so anyways...

Yeah, but it's like...

"Oh, well, I learned how to drive."
"You ran into a fucking tree! No, scratch that. You ran into the same tree two fucking times!"
"Yeah, but at least I'm driving, right?"

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

Besides, you could always attempt some form of subliminal conditioning in their comic books...

 

[El Poncho]

I hate the books I'm made to read in Engling and tbh, I think it's sort of put me off wanting to read books. I've only recently read a novel that wasn't in school for the first time in about 3 years.

 

[AvsJoe]

I'm for the "at least they're reading" response. Most city newspapers are written so that the average 6th grader is able to read it, yet many children are entering high-school unable to do so (I used to know the percentage, but my memory is not very strong). I support reading, especially reading outside of the classroom, because for every word read, you are more likely to read another.

 

[Golden Gryphon]

If they move onto other, more well written, books then it's fine. If all they're reading is crappy books then 'Oh well, at least they're reading' isn't worth much unless your only aim is to make sure they're literate.

I think most people who read for pleasure wanted to be able to read from a very young age. I don't think that many people suddenly start just because of one book.

 

[Seras54]

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.

Make love to me, right now.
I lol'd so hard I think I broke my lolometer

 

[Robert632]

"but it gets them reading" is a cop out worse then the deathly hallows in harry potter.

 

[LockHeart]

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.

Well proportionally - amount of people killed by idiot drivers: numerous to say the least; amount of people killed by Twitards: nil, to my knowledge.

I'm not denying that those select people are absolute nutters, just that they aren't as much of a danger as a person who throws a two-ton piece of machinery around as if it were a child's plaything.

 

[Azhrarn-101]

Have you ever encountered this attitude? You're in discussion with a high school English teacher, a parent, or some other person and you are presenting a negative opinion of a popular book. At some point or another they offer a somewhat different view. This is usually summed up in "even if the content is subpar, at least they're reading."

Over here in high-school it is mandatory to read a number of books before the final exams for an oral-exam about those books for each language subject you take.
Most books on the list to choose from are recognised works of literature.
(for English for instance authors like: Shakespear, Mary Shelly, Bram Stoker, John Keats and Frank Herbert have works present on the list)

While many won't really enjoy reading the ton of stuff they need to,
(For me it was 23 books in dutch, 15 in english and 12 in german) they however may encounter books they like and decide to investigate further, leading hopefully to more reading once the mandatory sets are done.

I can't say I agree entirely with your stance though, reading trashy novels is still reading, the quality of the books may not be up to our own standards, but there is the possibility they'll move on to better books because of their experiences with these works.

They may start of reading "Twillight", sparkly vampires and all, but can very well end up reading "Interview with a Vampire" or "Dracula" because of their interest in the subject matter. And those last 2 don't really qualify as garbage now do they?

 

[Dramatic Flare]

From a personal point of view, the problem I found back in those days was I was FORCED to read "good" books. I wasn't reading it for enjoyment, I was reading it because I was forced to, and because I had to pick it apart and write lengthy essays about subjects and topics that have been written on so many times it has all but become parody of the original subjects. It's like being given a steak. It could be the finest cut of meat ever, but if you're not hungry, and you're forced to sit down and eat the entire thing while describing every minute detail about it, it'll probably be an unpleasant experience.

Now ten years later I'm reading stuff I never would have even looked at back then, not because I am being forced to but because I want to. Humans are resistant by nature, force them to do something and more often than not (even if it is a good thing) they'll resist in some way. What we should be doing is encouraging kids to read these books, not handing them to them and saying "Now, write a ten page essay explaining why the characters did why they did." Hence why most kids in school with me (myself being one of them) gravitated towards what would be called garbage. Goosebumps, shit like that. Because we could read it our way, on our schedule, and we didn't have to write a bloody disertation on the motivations of the second main character's foil in relation to the themes of economic distortion underlying in the subtext of chapter six. For fuck sake.

I mean Christ, there is nothing more than can be learned from To Kill a Mockingbird. Seriously, the point has been made. It's been made so many times they haven't even bothered to remake it. THAT'S how worn out it is. I remember one teacher, she couldn't do it with books but she gave us a movie one instead. Pick a movie, describe something about it. It could be the characters, their motivations, whatever, it just had to be a well thought out, well written thing. That was one of the funnest assignments I ever did, and one where I put the most effort into it, because it wasn't a grind. It was an actual learning experience, because I could just ask everyone else "So, what did you get for Boo Radley's motivation?" to continue harping on the appropriately authored Harper Lee book.

But then my shelf looks like a schizophrenic psychopathic hacker sailor survivalist picked my books, so what do I know.

Oh, quite, I do not agree with our school's method of enforced reading. People try whatever they can to not read and not enjoy the book. But the response should be "find other books you like," not, "find the simplest book you can." To be fair, there are many simple books that are also good, such as the The Little Prince which can cause grown men to cry. This is part of the mentality I dislike.

Given this stubborn reaction to reading what is forced upon you, shouldn't the english teachers find other ways to engage their students rather than throw in the towel and say, "well, at least they're reading something"? Your movie example is something I say is a good idea, a sign of a teacher who cares.