"But it gets them reading."

[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.

 

[Terramax]

True, but the general idea is that most people these days consider reading to be "gay"

I predict the reason for that are most kids only read these terrible books.

Had they been given accessible yet clever, rewarding, intelligent books then perhaps that wouldn't be the case.

It's like pop music. Most are ridiculed for liking it because 'pop' is considered synonymous with 'bad taste'.

What are the chances you?ll start listening to a respectable, intelligent band like Radiohead after listening to a Aqua?s albums?

Although if they never read they'll never get onto "harder" books later on.

I think you've miss-understood this statement (either that or I have). When he means 'hard' I think he's referring to 'better'.

In other words, reading a terrible book doesn't mean someone will then seek out something better. In fact, if they're anything like me, they'll give up and never want to read ever again.

I was so sick and tired of being introduced to the same pretentious, cliched books in school and by friends that I reverted to anime like Evangalion, Akira and Ghost in the Shell (back in the days before the Internet was widespread, and anime in the west was mainly for grownups i.e. still cool) and videogames. I didn't read books for years.

It was only through watching GitS recently, an anime, that has interested me to read books on psychology, NOT books like Twilight or Harry Potter.

 

[The King And His Fool]

Did anyone explain exactly how reading a book can be bad?

The only book that you can even consider to be educationally bad are the ones that are littered with bad grammar and spelling mistakes. Other than those (and tv magazines and game magazines and p*rnor other irrelevant stuff, stop giving bad examples to prove a point), I fail to see how they could detract from my overall intelligence.

Are you saying people shouldn't read AT ALL if they'd rather chose a Harry Potter over a work of Tolstoy? If you ask me, it's better to hear a "at least it got them reading" instead of "They're not reading, but I suppose it could be worse.."

Every book has its merits and will contribute one way or another to its reader. If not for the masterly way it was written, than at least for the story that compels the reader to keep those pages turning. Heck, even pretty picture can make a book worth the read.

Let people read what they enjoy reading. That's what books are for anyway.

True, but the general idea is that most people these days consider reading to be "gay"

I predict the reason for that are most kids only read these terrible books.

Had they been given accessible yet clever, rewarding, intelligent books then perhaps that wouldn't be the case.

It's like pop music. Most are ridiculed for liking it because 'pop' is considered synonymous with 'bad taste'.

What are the chances you?ll start listening to a respectable, intelligent band like Radiohead after listening to a Aqua?s albums?

Yes, I can already imagine the hordes of illiterates flooding towards you when you offer them one of those "clever, rewarding, intelligent" books. People don't read for other reasons. No time, no interested, other forms of entertainment and pastime that are more thrilling to them than reading words on white paper.

I'm actually glad you brought up "pop" music as being inferior to other genres. Considering the other thread about pop music and how people have been bashing it for no other reason than the fact that their favourite band doesn't make it, proves just how much (my apologies for using the term) elitism is going around. Your music, books and movies are all better than theirs. It doesn't have to do with tastes. No, it's just a fact. Right? Why would radiohead, as a band, be more respectable and intelligent than pop artist? Sure, it's good music, for you, and me, but you can see how it doesn't necessarily appeal to everyone, right?

It's the same for books.

De gustibus non est disputandum, but apparently here, it can.

 

[Jirlond]

It's not just books - the amount of crap that magazines and tabloids produce attributes to people wanting shameless substanceless same story over and over again!

 

[Librarian Mike]

There is one big problem with this idea of people reading the 'wrong' stuff. Basically, there seems to be an assumption that they are the authority of what is good and bad. I hate to break it to you, but it's all subjective. Different people have different reading preferences, not to mention different reading abilities.

If you can get young people to the point where reading is something they choose to do rather than something like mowing the lawn, you've already climbed the mountain. If it takes Twilight, or Harry Potter, or hell even Ninjabread Man to motivate young people, so be it. The idea is that it opens a door to more things. As we say in the library business, the trick is getting them in the door. Once they're in, we've got 'em.

 

[Terramax]

Did anyone explain exactly how reading a book can be bad?
...I fail to see how they could detract from my overall intelligence.

I'll explain.

In this world there are children (and grown-ups) that are encouraged to read fascist, racist, negative books that'll only influence them to grow living under extremist ideologies and carry on reading books in the vein, and to inflict harm on.

"Oh, but it gets them reading..."

Reading good books can educate self-respect, free-thinking, to develop your mind and soul, feel joyous, unique and give you inner strength to be proud of who you are and to pursue your own goals and ambitions.

A bad book teaches you to conform to the norm, not because it makes you a better person, but safer from pain and fear, to expect more or the impossible, to live on false dreams, to commit acts of cruelty.

Reverting this back to children's books. It's encouraged this mass pop-culture of dressing and acting in idiotic conventions, expecting some perfect human to pull them out of their mundain lives and giving a better one.

From what I understand, most generic, pop-culture books don't teach you about the hardships of life, and give you the information and strength to overcome your problems on your own, but to rely on other super-beings or magic. False hopes and dreams.

And most of the kids won't go on to reading deeper, more thought provoking books. They'll just grow out of the them then start buying Cosmopolitan Magazine or FHM instead.

But, hell, the books get em reading, huh?

 

[Blurbl]

In this world there are children (and grown-ups) that are encouraged to read fascist, racist, negative books that'll only influence them to grow living under extremist ideologies and carry on reading books in the vein, and to inflict harm on.

"Oh, but it gets them reading..."

Reading good books can educate self-respect, free-thinking, to develop your mind and soul, feel joyous, unique and give you inner strength to be proud of who you are and to pursue your own goals and ambitions.

A bad book teaches you to conform to the norm, not because it makes you a better person, but safer from pain and fear, to expect more or the impossible, to live on false dreams, to commit acts of cruelty.

Reverting this back to children's books. It's encouraged this mass pop-culture of dressing and acting in idiotic conventions, expecting some perfect human to pull them out of their mundain lives and giving a better one.

From what I understand, most generic, pop-culture books don't teach you about the hardships of life, and give you the information and strength to overcome your problems on your own, but to rely on other super-beings or magic. False hopes and dreams.

And most of the kids won't go on to reading deeper, more thought provoking books. They'll just grow out of the them then start buying Cosmopolitan Magazine or FHM instead.

But, hell, the books get em reading, huh?

I think you're overblowing the effect books have on people; the only written works I've seen change people are religious texts. I've seen a particularly well written piece of poetry make someone think for a minute, but then it is forgotten.

And I'm not sure what you mean by a bad book; do you mean a book that teachs or contains poor lifestyle choices, or a book that doesn't make the reader think?

 

[Terramax]

Yes, I can already imagine the hordes of illiterates flooding towards you when you offer them one of those "clever, rewarding, intelligent" books. People don't read for other reasons. No time, no interested, other forms of entertainment and pastime that are more thrilling to them than reading words on white paper.

I'm actually glad you brought up "pop" music as being inferior to other genres. Considering the other thread about pop music and how people have been bashing it for no other reason than the fact that their favourite band doesn't make it, proves just how much (my apologies for using the term) elitism is going around. Your music, books and movies are all better than theirs. It doesn't have to do with tastes. No, it's just a fact. Right? Why would radiohead, as a band, be more respectable and intelligent than pop artist? Sure, it's good music, for you, and me, but you can see how it doesn't necessarily appeal to everyone, right?

For the record I'm not a fan of Radionhead. I do think they're talented, but I don't listen to them. And I like pop music (my favourite band is 'Cast'. Rock bands don't get much more pop than that).

Why are Radiohead more intelligent and respectable? I think it's reasonable to say that their music has been produced to be more thought provoking, emotional and meaningful than the average pop record. It doesn't necessarily make them better, but definitely more intelligent and probably more deserving of respect than the Pussycat Dolls.

Going back to the original subject, I made a * theory * on how children/ teenagers think about books, not me personally.

Perhaps kids think many books are gay, nerdy, for losers, etc, because the only ones they've been introduced to at that time are books deliberately dumbed down for the teenage audience.

What many pop-books have a habit of doing is treating their readers like they're more stupid than they actually are. At least, when I was 11, I felt patronised being expected read Goosebumps because everyone else was, when I wanted to read the later Discworld Novals and mangas like Ghost in the Shell, which I found more appealing because they didn't treat me like an adolescent.

Going right back to what ninjablu said, wouldn't it be better that instead of selling blandly written, pointless, reproduced, cliched stories that kids enjoy to a point, why not sell intelligent, interesting, deep, memorable plots that inspire creative, improved ways of thinking that is also just as much, if not more enjoyable? Not only that, but these books deliberately provoke kids to read all kinds of other books (other subjects, genres, etc), instead of what they actually do is try to get them to only read the sequels, buy the T-shirts, watch the films and buy into the other merchandise until the franchise falls out of favour to another pop-book?

 

[dalek sec]

I'm going to get flamed for saying this but honestly I don't care. Books like the Twilight series should just be banned, for god sakes look at how crazy the fan base for it are.

 

[Librarian Mike]

I'm going to get flamed for saying this but honestly I don't care. Books like the Twilight series should just be banned, for god sakes look at how crazy the fan base it for the nonesense.

~Yeah totally. It's just like those video gamers...~

 

[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.

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.

Well you do bash these "terrible books" so it kind of implies you think people should be reading "better" material.