Twilight

This discussion is amusing. Most of the people arguing can be categorized into these groups;

Group A. Vehemently opposed to the Twilight series. Members of this group frequently make incredibly condescending remarks, either implied, or directly, to the members of group C. Likely none, or few, members of this distinguished bunch have actually read the series. After all, they have more important things to read.

Group B. Takes offense at group A's condescending manner. However members of this group are also quick to point out that "they don't really like Twilight,", thereby being equally condescending (implying that they are too intelligent for that sort of fluff).

Group C. Twilight loving teenage girl(s).

Did I miss anyone? Oh don't even mention me. I know I'm a condescending hypocrite and don't need any of you to point that out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wat??

This discussion is amusing. Most of the people arguing can be categorized into these groups;

Group A. Vehemently opposed to the Twilight series. Members of this group frequently make incredibly condescending remarks, either implied, or directly, to the members of group C. Likely none, or few, members of this distinguished bunch have actually read the series. After all, they have more important things to read.

Group B. Takes offense at group A's condescending manner. However members of this group are also quick to point out that "they don't really like Twilight,", thereby being equally condescending (implying that they are too intelligent for that sort of fluff).

Group C. Twilight loving teenage girl(s).

Did I miss anyone? Oh don't even mention me. I know I'm a condescending hypocrite and don't need any of you to point that out.

---

Group C applies to me I am a girl but hardly a teenager.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joreads

They are not meant to be scary. The vampire in this sense is a metaphor for dangerous sexual atttraction. Edward could kill Bella at any time should his inner beast take over that is what the article meant. Whether we admit it or not we all like a little bit of danger every now and again. Edward is in fact so handsome that Bella cannot resist him even though she knows he may in fact ine day kill her.

---

I felt a bit voyeuristic reading it. Edward was wet and martyrish. I do like some aspects of the books, but they are often tedious and unintentionally hilarious. I like books with 'dangerous love' but Twilight series was too fetishy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

I felt a bit voyeuristic reading it. Edward was wet and martyrish. I do like some aspects of the books, but they are often tedious and unintentionally hilarious. I like books with 'dangerous love' but Twilight series was too fetishy.

---

I can see where you are coming from. There were parts of the series that I really disliked but not enough to hate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

I felt a bit voyeuristic reading it. Edward was wet and martyrish. I do like some aspects of the books, but they are often tedious and unintentionally hilarious. I like books with 'dangerous love' but Twilight series was too fetishy.

---

Read the novella Bear by Marian Engel, or Elle by Douglas Glover - those are fetishy - and hilarious, albeit, extremely political texts - this one is merely conventional.

That being said, it is characteristically part of a tradition, there is no denying that - I think Anne Rice is more Fetishistic, since she at least embraces, to an extent, the original myth of vampire (to a slim extent), which is based on strong erotic symbols, whereas Myer, whilst acknowledging them to an extent, seems to have reformed the allegory into one that can fit a rather silly political agenda - the whole myth is turned upside down, and in its place, the vampire of passionate, young sexual intercourse has become the loving husband/protector/master figure, whose libido is only to be satisfied after marriage, when the woman can successfully change from curious adolescent into a good (in the religious sense) mother.

Meyer is not Angela Carter - at least Carter had the brains to show the stories, and to invert them by granting a female presence open to sexuality, thereby destroying the victim/predator binary - Meyer, in contrast, works to reinforce the binary, but to, instead of giving the female sexual control over her own destiny, and thereby turning her into both predator and victim, merely condones the actions under the sanctions of religious marriage - there is no problem with the female being the weaker, less experienced, victim in the relationship, as longs as they love each other, and are married - the sexual awakening of the heroine it can be argued, only serves as a sign that she is ready to be handed over to the conventions of marriage, and motherhood, as apposed to being ready to pursue a sexual discovery which would lead her to an understanding of herself, and those around her, and how her body ultimately reacts - such an adventure is best suited for tales where liberal discourse is discussed, as apposed to strong patriarchy-enforcing statements are masked through highly romanticized bouts on artificial love, and unrealistic adventure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

That is interesting. It really bothers me that they spelt the author's name wrong though.

---

Gee I never picked up on that.

Thanks to charm we have a link to the new moon trailer. Like her or not this is going to be a blockbuster. I for one hope they do a better job with this than they did with Twilight. Does anyone know if SM was involved in this one:?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ9afRgToxE

~SPOILERS~

~LENGTHINESS WILL FOLLOW~ (:lol:)

~SO WILL PERSONAL OPINIONS~

Now, onto the real stuff.

I wrote a review some time ago about Twilight (it's still there, over with the book reviews). It wasn't exactly... nice. But as for Stephenie Meyer...

Stephenie Meyer is brave. My biggest dream is to write a book. Between classes and work I could certainly find time, I'm sure, but every time I sit down at the computer and brace myself to go, I get...skittish. And I play Tetris instead. Stephenie Meyer sat down and wrote. She had kids crawling all over her, probably, and a husband who was probably constantly asking silly questions like "DO WE HAVE ANY JELLY?" (If you get the reference, 10 pts. for you) and "WHAT ARE YOU WRITING? A ROMANCE NOVEL? WILL IT MAKE MONEY?" 60% of the time. She was not wealthy. This is admirable, to me.

And then, likely just to see what this book could do, she sent it to a publisher who probably saw big bucks in the story and decided to slide it through an editor and get it on the shelves quickly. I'm just guessing. My point here is, she didn't get a chance to let it stew - at least, I don't think. Most authors give it a chance to stew! (Unless your name is Neil Gaiman and you burp brilliance) After you keep it in the crockpot overnight it becomes rich and tasty - like another young adult series, The Dark Is Rising Sequence. Rich. and Tasty. If Twilight had been given some time to grow, who knows what the series may have been like, or if it may have made it up there. I, for one, would like to know what happened to Leah. It's one of the biggest grievances I hold towards Meyer, leaving that poor character out in the dust after all she'd been through (Why didn't she just hook her up with Jacob? Would that have been so bad?) - although I've heard rumors of a maybe-Leah-story-next?

The Twilight Series came out like Irish quadruplets- wham, bam, thank you ma'am.

To say I detest the Twilight series would be a lie. I read each book, after all. I even went to the Breaking Dawn release, although my friends and I painted lightning bolt scars on our foreheads and pretended to look confused the whole time (well, WE thought it was funny). Though the members of the Cullen family lacked depth and originality, they were a wonderfully fun creation - though I felt too little time was given to their personal stories - and if it weren't for them I doubt I could have finished even the first book, because Bella was, in my personal opinion, an absolutely terrible character. I realize entirely that these are young adult books (TwiMoms will protest, but the section doesn't lie), and must be relatively easy reads (so we can't have Ivans and Alyoshas), but even for that genre, Bella was a terrible character (cares more about being with the pretty people than college, lives only for a boy, and he's dangerous, and she hurts another boy in the process of trying to get over 1st boy, and she wants to die, and she doesn't like grass or average people, or music - except Muse and Edward's Song of Beauteous Bella - and nevermind, I said all this in my review, I think).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

I do like some aspects of the books, but they are often tedious and unintentionally hilarious. I like books with 'dangerous love' but Twilight series was too fetishy.

---

"Unintentionally hilarious." Yes, by the way. http://otahyoni.livejournal.com/130432.html#cutid1

I don't know Stephenie Meyer. I do feel as if Bella is a Mary Sue character. She is definitely Meyer's idea of a heroine, and that makes me sad, because it says so much about Meyer herself.

Her writing is not to my liking either. Maybe, if she had more time to work on the books (andathesaurus) she could've written something better. Twilight was her first go and has done very well, so I can't say she's downright terrible, but I cannot even put her up next to Susan Cooper or C.S. Lewis or Madeleine L'Engle. I get the Edward Cullen appeal - sexy/dangerous, got it. I've been reading romance novels since I was eleven, however, and I've read of bitter dukes and fallen barons that seem just as, if not more, sexy/dangerous than Edward, and so I was not impressed (my little sister was, of course). I also remember hiding in the corner of my room with a flashlight when I was fourteen, well after everyone had gone to bed, staring wide-eyed down at the pages of The Vampire Lestat - talk about being afraid of vampires, people.

But I'm gonna end this very messy post with this, because I feel like a lot of ladies (and men, perhaps) felt this way about Twilight. This is from www.cleolinda.com - Cleo's a fabulous blogger, and her thoughts of Twilight are not only hilarious, but completely understandable:

"A lot of people are really passionate about these books. Some of them love and defend them passionately; others... well. I'm not going to defend them any more than I'm going to defend Twinkies--you go and get yourself a Twinkie when you have a very specific kind of craving (SUGARRRRR!). If you want gourmet pastry, or even a homemade cake, you know where to get that. If you're eating a Twinkie, you clearly know what you want and why you're eating it, and you know that it's not good to eat very many of them, but... you know... sometimes you just want one. (And then when you're done you read it all over again). Apparently there are people who think that Twinkies count as fine dining, but... well, live and let live, I guess." -Cleolinda Jones

WOW! That's a MOUTHFULL!
so, are you neutral,Wisp?

Hiya, sugar! Yea, generally if I say something, it's bound to be long-winded. My curse, I think.

I'm neutral on Stephenie Meyer. She gets points because she writes (which I think is brave) -even if I don't think she writes well. However, I feel very negatively towards WHAT she writes- I would say I'm an anti-Twilight girl who's read the series (so I guess I'm group A, subsection 1. :D). But that's another topic altogether.

i think it was a good read for the fun of it but i'm not feeling it so much after i finished the series!

hay, have you read her other book, The Host? I think that's a real good one...better than Twilight...my opinion, i'd like other people's info, but all of them seems stuck on Twilight!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beautifull

i think it was a good read for the fun of it but i'm not feeling it so much after i finished the series!

hay, have you read her other book, The Host? I think that's a real good one...better than Twilight...my opinion, i'd like other people's info, but all of them seems stuck on Twilight!

---

I have to say that I am a little over the Twilight thing now. There is a little too much of it everywhere you go. I still enjoyed the books (the movie was terrible) though.
I haven't read the other book (Beautiful you know what I have been reading.) It doesn't really appeal to me but who knows I may change my mind

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joreads

i still enjoyed the books (the movie was terrible) though.

---

I agree I AGREE I AGREE!!!!!!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beautifull

i agree i agree i agree!!!!!!!:d

---

Wow you are the first to agree with me on that. I am still planning on giving New Moon ago if it is as bad as Twilight a naked RP would not even make me watch any more ,although ;)

idk if i want to watch it...it's like the harry potter movies!

{edit}

Though there's nothing wrong with just reading some good, fun entertaining crap once in awhile. And hell, if it gets people to read (especially pre teens and teens) who don't normally read, then that's a good thing for sure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stargazer86

.... if it gets people to read (especially pre teens and teens) who don't normally read, then that's a good thing for sure

---

I never understand this argument - that it's better kids should read crap than not read at all. Or that they might start off reading crap, but that'll lead them on to the good stuff.

People rarely say that it's better that kids play crap video games than no video games at all; or that playing crap video games might lead them on to the good video games. No one believes that kids should eat crap food because they'll end up eating good food. The argument is never put that kids should listen to crap music rather than no music at all, and anyway, they might end up listening to Verdi.

So the position seems to be that reading is a Good Thing regardless of what's being read.

I don't agree with that. As it happens, I don't think it matters much that kids read crap from time to time. But, frankly, I'd rather my daughters played a clever and challenging video game than read a badly-written and vapid book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

I never understand this argument - that it's better kids should read crap than not read at all. Or that they might start off reading crap, but that'll lead them on to the good stuff.

People rarely say that it's better that kids play crap video games than no video games at all; or that playing crap video games might lead them on to the good video games. No one believes that kids should eat crap food because they'll end up eating good food. The argument is never put that kids should listen to crap music rather than no music at all, and anyway, they might end up listening to Verdi.

So the position seems to be that reading is a Good Thing regardless of what's being read.

I don't agree with that. As it happens, I don't think it matters much that kids read crap from time to time. But, frankly, I'd rather my daughters played a clever and challenging video game than read a badly-written and vapid book.

---

That's an interesting and strong argument, however it is often such a struggle to get younger people to read at all, so that in the end it is perhaps better to get young people to read something, anything, just so that they can actually develop their own reading skills. It is probably more about gaining reading skills than literary appreciation. I would rather see kids reading good books over crap ones, but I would rather see kids reading crap or so/so books than nothing at all, and with it poor rates of literacy that would follow.

UGH. Twilight. >_<

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

People rarely say that it's better that kids play crap video games than no video games at all; or that playing crap video games might lead them on to the good video games. No one believes that kids should eat crap food because they'll end up eating good food. The argument is never put that kids should listen to crap music rather than no music at all, and anyway, they might end up listening to Verdi.

So the position seems to be that reading is a Good Thing regardless of what's being read.

I don't agree with that. As it happens, I don't think it matters much that kids read crap from time to time. But, frankly, I'd rather my daughters played a clever and challenging video game than read a badly-written and vapid book.

---

Sorry, Mark, but I think this is a false analogy. For the most-part, I don't believe people think of there being good video games, and by good I mean educational and insightful in the same way we think of books being good. You cannot equate books and video games because while there is a difference between a good book and a crap book, most people don't think of there being the same scale in video games. And even if we do consider that some video games are meant to be educational, the number of those and the frequency of their being played does not compare to the number of good books and the frequency of their being read.

The food analogy doesn't work out either. Eating is not something we do recreationally or for education or entertainment. The purpose of eating cannot evolve such as the purpose for reading can. And if it comes down to it, I'm sure you'd rather eat crap than starve.

I really don't think the issue is so much what children are reading but how they read it. That changes as people get older, but I think teaching a child or young adult to think see and and analyze what they read is the most important thing, and this can be taught even in a weaker, less academic novel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

I never understand this argument - that it's better kids should read crap than not read at all. Or that they might start off reading crap, but that'll lead them on to the good stuff.

People rarely say that it's better that kids play crap video games than no video games at all; or that playing crap video games might lead them on to the good video games. No one believes that kids should eat crap food because they'll end up eating good food. The argument is never put that kids should listen to crap music rather than no music at all, and anyway, they might end up listening to Verdi.

So the position seems to be that reading is a Good Thing regardless of what's being read.

I don't agree with that. As it happens, I don't think it matters much that kids read crap from time to time. But, frankly, I'd rather my daughters played a clever and challenging video game than read a badly-written and vapid book.

---

It is a good argument, but I would rather my kid read some crap for awhile (as long as it wasn't inappropriate) until they are more comfortable with thier reading skills. And sometimes, when they find crap that they like, they will move on to something more substantial in a similar genre. One of my friends at the bookstore says that more kids are reading/buying classics such as dracula ever since Twilight came out. Sometimes kids just need something to get them into the habit of reading in the first place.
Comparing video games to books is like comparing apples to oranges.
I do believe, and have seen first hand, that a lot of crap books are like a gateway into something more substantial

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

Sorry, Mark, but I think this is a false analogy. For the most-part, I don't believe people think of there being good video games, and by good I mean educational and insightful in the same way we think of books being good. You cannot equate books and video games because while there is a difference between a good book and a crap book, most people don't think of there being the same scale in video games. And even if we do consider that some video games are meant to be educational, the number of those and the frequency of their being played does not compare to the number of good books and the frequency of their being read.

The food analogy doesn't work out either. Eating is not something we do recreationally or for education or entertainment. The purpose of eating cannot evolve such as the purpose for reading can. And if it comes down to it, I'm sure you'd rather eat crap than starve.

I really don't think the issue is so much what children are reading but how they read it. That changes as people get older, but I think teaching a child or young adult to think see and and analyze what they read is the most important thing, and this can be taught even in a weaker, less academic novel.

---

But books like Twilight, Harry Potter, Dark Materials, etc. are not geared towards children but towards youth/young adults, that 14-18 age range... and by the age of 14 or 15 if one is living in a modern country with a decent education system, one has read things far beyond any of those books in English (or whatever language) class... so to say that they get one reading, expand on reading skills, help develop literacy as one person has suggested, is ridiculous.. personally I think any of these works, besides being read for mindless entertainment, which has no other benefits than being entertaining like a movie or a video game, well they are age appropriate for challenging an 8-10 year old if that... they are all extremely safe, as they don't challenge in any way shape or form...

also if you turn reading into analysing, challenging, really thinking about what you're reading, well most of those people reading these kinds of books are no longer going to want to read them.. they are read for escapism, and entertainment, nothing more... if you make one analyse, think critically, change how they read, they are going to realize how mediocre the work really is... and no one can honestly say that any of these works challenge a 16 year old? the way say, Twain does, or Dickens, or Salinger? or even Le Guin in the fantasy realm?

so reading in and of itself can't really be regarded as any different than watching tv, or playing a video game... for the very idea of changing how young people read to be more analytical, would change the very books they read, as when looking closely and thinking critically as you suggest, no one would feel satisfied with such mediocrity... so Mark is right when he said the benefit of reading depends on what you are reading... for if you change the how, you will necessarily change the what in my opinion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stargazer86

It is a good argument, but I would rather my kid read some crap for awhile (as long as it wasn't inappropriate) until they are more comfortable with thier reading skills. And sometimes, when they find crap that they like, they will move on to something more substantial in a similar genre. One of my friends at the bookstore says that more kids are reading/buying classics such as dracula ever since Twilight came out. Sometimes kids just need something to get them into the habit of reading in the first place.
Comparing video games to books is like comparing apples to oranges.
I do believe, and have seen first hand, that a lot of crap books are like a gateway into something more substantial

---

the point here is that people are singling out single authors for contributing so much to getting people reading, when in point of fact those who go on to read more substantial works would have done so regardless of what they began with... why does JK Rowling get such acclaim for getting people reading, yet during my generation when kids read RL Stine and several others no one mentioned them as starting people onto better works.. I don't think more children read now that Harry Potter and Twilight are around, what I think is that readership has been consolidated into one or two books and disregards all other options.. is that a good thing? not in my opinion..

and as I said, those who go on to read more substantial works, would have gone on to do so regardless of what mediocre garbage they began with.. but now that these authors are around it hasn't upped the numbers on who has gone on to read more substantial things as illustrated by the fact reading rates are still in decline...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

the point here is that people are singling out single authors for contributing so much to getting people reading, when in point of fact those who go on to read more substantial works would have done so regardless of what they began with... why does JK Rowling get such acclaim for getting people reading, yet during my generation when kids read RL Stine and several others no one mentioned them as starting people onto better works.. I don't think more children read now that Harry Potter and Twilight are around, what I think is that readership has been consolidated into one or two books and disregards all other options.. is that a good thing? not in my opinion..

and as I said, those who go on to read more substantial works, would have gone on to do so regardless of what mediocre garbage they began with.. but now that these authors are around it hasn't upped the numbers on who has gone on to read more substantial things as illustrated by the fact reading rates are still in decline...

---

I read R.L Stine when I was 6 or 7. I owned every single one of his books (like 72), and I very much think he is part of the reason I developed a love for reading.

I can understand (not necessarilly agree, but understand) the issue with HP & Twilight but the inclusion of Pullman's Dark Materials I have an issue with. Pullman's work has depth and comparing him to Rowling is like comparing Le Carre to Grisham.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

I read R.L Stine when I was 6 or 7. I owned every single one of his books (like 72), and I very much think he is part of the reason I developed a love for reading.

---

and would you claim that RL Stine is a good writer?

the point here being that everyone had to start somewhere. I began with some junk alongside the classics I read as a kid, when I was 15 or 16 I even slipped back and read some Tom Clancy and other such rubbish for a time...

but what I'm saying is that giving Meyer and Rowlings credit for getting people on their way to loving literature is absurd, as the vast majority of readers will never pick up a more substantial work, and those who do would have done so anyways no matter what rubbish they began with... so why don't we hear about how RL Stine, and Tom Clancy, and Dan Brown, and whatever other authors are gateways to great literature? instead we always hear arguments about how Rowling is getting everyone reading the classics... which is ridiculous...

or contemporary literature? I know people who read the classics just for the fact they seem to feel they should as they are the "classics" but it seems that very few people read good contemporary literature, and I wonder if part of this is that it is obscured by the garbage being put out now... I mean, everyone knows the classics and has heard about them, but unless you subscribe to lit journals, etc. you never hear about new works of literature.. at least not the good ones.. they are hard to find in bookstores unless you go in with knowledge of the author you're looking for... is this a result of the explosion of mass market paperback fiction?

W a r n i n g

Please note that some posts have been edited/deleted due to their offensive nature and/or because they made references to such posts.

Such posts will continue to be deleted in future as well.

You do not have to like/dislike the books that are being discussed on the Forum but please respect others' rights to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

I can understand (not necessarilly agree, but understand) the issue with HP & Twilight but the inclusion of Pullman's Dark Materials I have an issue with. Pullman's work has depth and comparing him to Rowling is like comparing Le Carre to Grisham.

---

This.

I agree with Kilted.

If you haven't read His Dark Materials then i don't think it is right to comment on it. Not a lot of people are aware of how clever it is. On the surface it appeals to children but the issues it deals with, as I have stated in another post, are for adults

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

Sorry, Mark, but I think this is a false analogy. For the most-part, I don't believe people think of there being good video games, and by good I mean educational and insightful in the same way we think of books being good.

---

Then people should do a bit more research. There may not be games that have the depth and sustainability of Roth or Solzhenitsyn, but there are many that have more depth, intelligence, creative invention and imaginative challenge than anything written by Meyers or Cussler.

And those are the games I was referring to when I said that I'd rather my daughters played a good game than read a crap book. I didn't say I'd rather they played any video game than read any book.

The analogy, incidentally, concerned the notion of 'gateway' pastimes, rather than the purpose of the pastimes. But if you don't like it, ditch the analogy. The argument about books stands - I don't think that any reading is better than not reading. I think content matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Then people should do a bit more research. There may not be games that have the depth and sustainability of Roth or Solzhenitsyn, but there are many that have more depth, intelligence, creative invention and imaginative challenge than anything written by Meyers or Cussler.

And those are the games I was referring to when I said that I'd rather my daughters played a good game than read a crap book. I didn't say I'd rather they played any video game than read any book.

The analogy, incidentally, concerned the notion of 'gateway' pastimes, rather than the purpose of the pastimes. But if you don't like it, ditch the analogy. The argument about books stands - I don't think that any reading is better than no reading. I think content matters.

---

I feel like any book is better than any video game. That's judgemental of me, perhaps, as an artist, as a film lover, as a bibliophile; however, there is no art in video games, whether or not they are enjoyable. That is the "shutting down the mind" that was spoken of in another thread. I feel that the strong proponents of said video games are simply trying to make excuses for their bad habits. I like video games, but I'm not going to try to argue that they are in any way as important as film or literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

I feel like any book is better than any video game. That's judgemental of me, perhaps, as an artist, as a film lover, as a bibliophile; however, there is no art in video games, whether or not they are enjoyable.

---

What are the ten video games you most recently played?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

What are the ten video games you most recently played?

---

Nerdy crap. Probably the entire Final Fantasy series, Super Mario 3, Donkey Kong Country 3, just a bunch of SNES games that get out stress. :lol:

EDIT: And yes, there is reading involved in Final Fantasy. It is like a book, or a movie. But why bother, when you could do the real thing? Read a real book, watch a real movie. Metal Gear Solid was another favorite of mine, much like a movie as well. I remember hearing Hideo Kojima had wanted to be a film director but directed Metal Gear Solid instead. Whatever you're argument, if you want to argue that all this crap is better for kids, I don't think you're argument is a very good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

I feel like any book is better than any video game. That's judgemental of me, perhaps, as an artist, as a film lover, as a bibliophile; however, there is no art in video games, whether or not they are enjoyable. That is the "shutting down the mind" that was spoken of in another thread. I feel that the strong proponents of said video games are simply trying to make excuses for their bad habits. I like video games, but I'm not going to try to argue that they are in any way as important as film or literature.

---

Seeing as we are all going off topic anyway............

What about spin-off films from computer games? Is the film of Resident Evil more important than the game?

I'll start by saying that I'm not arguing with the fact that it's ridiculous to say that reading Twilight leads to reading better things. What I don't agree with is saying that one is better off not reading at all than reading twilight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

But books like Twilight, Harry Potter, Dark Materials, etc. are not geared towards children but towards youth/young adults, that 14-18 age range... and by the age of 14 or 15 if one is living in a modern country with a decent education system, one has read things far beyond any of those books in English (or whatever language) class... so to say that they get one reading, expand on reading skills, help develop literacy as one person has suggested, is ridiculous..

---

But this is where my argument comes into play: just because a person has read words does not mean that they have gathered any useful knowledge through the reading. Everyone reads Shakespeare in school when they're 14 or 15, but how many of them actually bother to first of all figure out what's being said, and second of all to interpret it? There are a lot of people who go through good education systems and come out the other side barely speaking their own language correctly, let alone being really literate. For example, the Ontario Literacy test is a test all students take in the tenth grade (roughly 15-16 years old) and must pass to graduate high school.

Sample question: The dog went to the store. Where did the dog go?

If you answered in a complete sentence, you got the mark. People fail this.

If a person is taking some sort of interest in what he or she is reading, there is something to be gained, and that is better than nothing.

Quote:

---

personally I think any of these works, besides being read for mindless entertainment, which has no other benefits than being entertaining like a movie or a video game, well they are age appropriate for challenging an 8-10 year old if that... they are all extremely safe, as they don't challenge in any way shape or form...

---

I don't know about that. I think I'd be rather unhappy about an 8 year old reading the Twilight sex scenes, no matter how challenging the novel is.

Aside from that, if an 8-10 year old is not willing to be challenged by what you would consider an appropriate work (as many aren't), what is wrong with having his or her mind at least opened to the possibility of being entertained by a book? At the very least being entertained by a book is worth slightly more than being entertained by a video game- while reading Twilight more than likely won't lead to the reading of better books, it at least opens up the possibility of the person being able to form a complete sentence which is an accomplishment in itself these days.

Quote:

---

also if you turn reading into analysing, challenging, really thinking about what you're reading, well most of those people reading these kinds of books are no longer going to want to read them..

---

Isn't this the goal though? Or do you think that it would be enough to make them stop reading altogether?

Quote:

---

they are read for escapism, and entertainment, nothing more... if you make one analyse, think critically, change how they read, they are going to realize how mediocre the work really is... and no one can honestly say that any of these works challenge a 16 year old? the way say, Twain does, or Dickens, or Salinger? or even Le Guin in the fantasy realm?

---

That's my point though. If one is taught to read critically, one will look for something better. No, these books aren't challenging to a 16 year old. There's always something to examine though. Even if it's the most basic thing in the world. Even if they say they like Twilight because the relationship is impossible, they have looked a little bit. They didn't set out to analyze, but they did in the most minute degree. And if that's as far as their reading career goes, at least there was something. Maybe "better" readers would only get that much out of Romeo and Juliet as well, despite the fact that they are reading better works.

Quote:

---

so reading in and of itself can't really be regarded as any different than watching tv, or playing a video game... for the very idea of changing how young people read to be more analytical, would change the very books they read, as when looking closely and thinking critically as you suggest, no one would feel satisfied with such mediocrity... so Mark is right when he said the benefit of reading depends on what you are reading... for if you change the how, you will necessarily change the what in my opinion...

---

I disagree. That's saying that as long as a kid is reading Shakespeare, that's good. That is clearly not true. There is more to it than that, and if a person is not willing to put in the effort to learn old english and figure out what it means, at least he or she can get something out of reading Twilight.

Quote:

---

the point here is that people are singling out single authors for contributing so much to getting people reading, when in point of fact those who go on to read more substantial works would have done so regardless of what they began with... why does JK Rowling get such acclaim for getting people reading, yet during my generation when kids read RL Stine and several others no one mentioned them as starting people onto better works.. I don't think more children read now that Harry Potter and Twilight are around, what I think is that readership has been consolidated into one or two books and disregards all other options.. is that a good thing? not in my opinion..

---

I agree with you. These authors don't deserve any more credit for getting kids to read than R.L. Stein. Again, I'm not arguing with the belief that reading these books doesn't lead to reading better books. Reading Twilight won't lead most readers past trashy romance novels. I still think a person is better off reading a trashy romance novel than nothing. If they gain something from it, they do, if they don't then they're no worse off then before they started.

Quote:

---

and as I said, those who go on to read more substantial works, would have gone on to do so regardless of what mediocre garbage they began with.. but now that these authors are around it hasn't upped the numbers on who has gone on to read more substantial things as illustrated by the fact reading rates are still in decline...

---

That doesn't refute my argument either.


Well that was a marathon. :yawnb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

Whatever you're argument, if you want to argue that all this crap is better for kids, I don't think you're argument is a very good one.

---

I didn't say it was better for kids. I said that I'd rather they played a good game - which requires intelligence, problem solving, immersion in an imaginary world, an understanding of plot structure, identification with fictional characters, concentration, dexterity and perseverance - than read a badly-written book.

As it happens, I do think that's better for them - but I'd prefer they did it mainly because I think it's more fun for them.

but this is fine with what I am saying, reading has no benefit if one takes nothing from it, and there is nothing to take from trash.. so in my opinion it is all the same whether one reads or not if one is reading trash...

why is someone better off reading trash then nothing at all? I have no problem with people reading trash, but to say it is beneficial seems wrong?

and like you say, just the act of reading Shakespeare is not what is good... it is how you read it.. but you are referring here to people being forced to read books in school, and all that does is develop functional literacy, besides that, it is not really beneficial.. but if someone is making the conscious choice to read Shakespeare or any other good literature for that matter, that is a good thing... whereas if someone is making the conscious choice to read trash I can't see how that is at all beneficial?

And I'm saying that just because you don't find that there's anything to take anything away from trash does not mean that others are the same.

If a person isn't willing/ capable of reading good lit, what is wrong with them reading a book for a good story or because they like the characters? Liking or identifying with a character is still something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

And I'm saying that just because you don't find that there's anything to take anything away from trash does not mean that others are the same.

If a person isn't willing/ capable of reading good lit, what is wrong with them reading a book for a good story or because they like the characters? Liking or identifying with a character is still something.

---

Charm I agree one mans trash is anothers treasure.

JBI pointed out that reading in general seems to be declining (might not be in this thread) ever thought that maybe kids stop reading because everytime they read a book and enjoy it there people all to willing to point out why it is crap and they shouldn't be reading it - just a crazy thought:crash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joreads

ever thought that maybe kids stop reading because everytime they read a book and enjoy it there people all to willing to point out why it is crap and they shouldn't be reading it - just a crazy thought:crash:

---

Good point. Never thought of that.

Maybe that's why people never get past reading Harry Potter and Twilight- if they enjoy it but everyone else says they're terrible, those other books must be pretty tough. It would scare me off if I was young and insecure in my reading, as I remember a lot of kids being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by islandclimber

But books like Twilight, Harry Potter, Dark Materials, etc. are not geared towards children but towards youth/young adults, that 14-18 age range... and by the age of 14 or 15 if one is living in a modern country with a decent education system, one has read things far beyond any of those books in English (or whatever language) class... so to say that they get one reading, expand on reading skills, help develop literacy as one person has suggested, is ridiculous.. personally I think any of these works, besides being read for mindless entertainment, which has no other benefits than being entertaining like a movie or a video game, well they are age appropriate for challenging an 8-10 year old if that... they are all extremely safe, as they don't challenge in any way shape or form...

---

Yes in an ideal world students of such age would, and should, be able to read things more advanced than these books, but we don't live in an ideal age.

Speaking as a person who sees extremely poor literacy levels in my day-to-day job, I personally welcome any book which creates a buzz around reading. Let me tell you there are whole sections of society which are well under the expected levels of literacy in the UK. I regularly meet 13-14 year olds with reading ages of 8-9, this is quite common in fact, there are even plenty of students around the 15-16 age who hold reading ages of 5-6. I think we should give these kids a break if they happen to catch an interest in any book, though most don't anyway.

I still also believe that a lot of people develop in their reading habits going from lesser works, to better works, as I personally did a long time ago.

Okay so I was really bored and found this thread and decided to give it a shot since i have read all of the twilight books many many times, love Eclipse and Twilight the most, and own the movie, while looking forward to New Moon coming out, and I realized something...
People have so much...tension, I think is the word i want to use...built up that they completely go off topic.
This thread was started because someone wanted to discuss the book Twilight. Simple as that. They wanted to know what others thought, what they felt, which is their favorite, and so on while being respectful to others and not spoiling everything.
After reading the 1st page I decided that I'll just skip to the very end and see where this has ended up.
I was shocked... you all became so carried away with deciding if you could or could not take something away from reading twilight or harry potter books, or if you read twilight books then you are just stuck with reading trashy/romance novels, and I even saw a comment made about if you read books like Twilight then you could never succeed in reading anything more enhanced such as Shakespeare. Then someone followed that with this generation not being that ideal to gain such knowledge.
really???? Then you try to give this generation sympathy for realizing that people who read books like Twilight get picked on for reading it which is why they don't read anything else.
how dare you all??
here is my story...
I am 18 years old. I read books all the time because I like to. simple as that. When harry potter books and twilight books first came out I did not want to read them because I thought they would have been terrible. Then I read them and fell in love simply because it took me away from reality. Now, im going to leave harry potter out of this because mainly this thread was about twilight. I began reading Twilight this past december and I read all four books in a week. It did drain me because I became so sucked into it. I have become a big twilight fan and I am aware that it is an easy read but I did take something out of it. I gained more hope for finding true love someday, I gained the idea of thinking of life, about the way I write essays for school, in more detail. I gained most of all... a week away from reality. I got to relax for the first time since august.
Now that you all know that I am a Twilight fan here are some other books I love to read...
Dear America, clubhouse books, mitch albom books, ICE, night, of mice and men, etc.
most of those are simple 6th grade books but i read those because I choose to and they help me relax.
But I have read Shakespeare, for a class to graduate, in my own time, and I have understood the meaning to his stories and the depth that he goes into. I love his work to no end.
What you all need to understand about this generation is that yes we get picked on because of what we read but this generation doesn't let that stop us from doing what we want to do. We ignore it and read whatever we want to no matter what.
It's what I did and I definitely know that its hard to step out of my comfort zone and read beyond what others think I can read. But I don't need anyone's sympathy.

I wasn't trying to make anyone feel bad about what has been said in this thread. I just wanted to make a point that maybe you shouldn't assume what people are capable of doing. If someone makes a thread about something and it looks like a new conversation is about to go somewhere else, make the stand and move that new conversation somewhere else.

I want to end this on a little note.

I am apart of this simple-trashy-reading-can't-read-anything-advanced-peer-pressured-generation, I read and completely understand Shakespeare, while being different from everyone else and doing what I want to do because it makes me happy. Doesn't that contradict your assumption?

It wouldn't be fair to say that everyone who reads Twilight has no brain or anything. But do those who only read it really appreciate it (not just in a literary sense)? They might as well watch a decent film.

And I wouldn't trust Twilight for writing your essays.