Twilight

[*Classic*Charm*]

The main thing is that people love the books and that they get enjoyment out of them!

Yes... and do you think that JBI or I read Dante or Shakespeare or Proust or T.S. Eliot for any reason but pleasure? The reality is that with experience (at least in my experience) one no longer finds much pleasure to be had in books that laden with tired plots, weak characters, mediocre use of language, and ridden with cliches. Personally I don't find much pleasure in trashy or fluffy books or music or art because they don't engage my mind and their attempts to manipulate my emotions are far too obvious. I can't imagine wasting my time when there are so many great books (and other works of art) still to be experienced and enjoyed.

I see what you mean, but I think it's a very different kind of enjoyment. I take pleasure in reading both Shakespeare and Dante (Haven't read the other two yet, unfortunately) because they do engage my mind, but I also enjoy fluff for its ability to mindlessly distract me. It's a different kind of enjoyment that is just necessary (at least for me) sometimes.

[stlukesguild]

I see what you mean, but I think it's a very different kind of enjoyment. I take pleasure in reading both Shakespeare and Dante (Haven't read the other two yet, unfortunately) because they do engage my mind, but I also enjoy fluff for its ability to mindlessly distract me. It's a different kind of enjoyment that is just necessary (at least for me) sometimes.

The thing is... I find that there is enough art... books, paintings, music... that is not overly difficult... that is entertaining and magical and light... yet still never bores me or speaks down to me. There is Italo Calvino, and Mozart, and Puccini, and Monet, and Bonnard, and Paul Verlaine, and Checkoff, and Lewiss Carroll, and Heinrich Heine, etc... etc... so many that I cannot ever bother myself with pure fluff.

[kelby_lake]

I don't mind fluff, as long as it admits it is.

[mayneverhave]

I see what you mean, but I think it's a very different kind of enjoyment. I take pleasure in reading both Shakespeare and Dante (Haven't read the other two yet, unfortunately) because they do engage my mind, but I also enjoy fluff for its ability to mindlessly distract me. It's a different kind of enjoyment that is just necessary (at least for me) sometimes.

I find myself agreeing both with you and stlukes.

Ultimately I'm somewhat of an elitist. I will choose Proust and Shakespeare over Stephen King or Stephanie Meyer in the long run, but occasional distractions are necessary.

Being somewhat of a film buff, I prefer watching classic films like Citizen Kane, 2001: A space odyssey over 300, or Spider-man 3, but occasional exersions into the cliche, weak, popular art is easier on the mind. Occasionally, I enjoy watching plots that are poor, acting peformances that are empty, and direction that is sloppy. This is more psychological than aesthetic.

With literature, I'm slightly different. I have not read a "crap" novel in perhaps about 5 years - I've soley dedicated myself to reading classics and well-recieved literature. This is because the reading of a novel usually takes much longer than watching a movie, and I simply don't have the time to waste reading some penny-dreadful. If I had fantastic mental capabilities and could read a book a day, this might be different, but as it stands, my time is valuable.

[Zee.]

When I read literature, granted it is also for the story, but I generally enjoy it for the sense of understanding it gives me about other people.

When I read "fluff" I don't care for the characters, I just want to shut my head off and simply follow a story.


But honestly, thank god everyone is very different and that not everyone enjoys fluff - because it means there's more for me

Stephen King isn't crap though.

He shouldn't be listed next to Stephanie Meyer.

Also, I have a taste for horror.

And I find that it's satisfied by more modern day authors who aren't literary greats.

I'm not saying that horror these days is all fluffy stupidity. Most of the horror I read is intelligent and well thought out. Far from fluff.

[Joreads]

And imprinting is also iffy...I think we oughta have a separate thread to discuss the more controversial stuff, as some people may not have read the whole saga. And not so I can say 'Ooh,this is an EVIL book!' just so I can see what other people think of the iffy parts.

Kelby that is a great idea I love to hear your idea's - don't always agree but love to hear them. In actualy fact you made me look at things a little differently when you pointed out a few points and that is always a great thing.

The imprinting thing was iffy. At first the concept sounded kind of okay, until the whole think of imprinting on kids and babies...

Niamh do you think that we can open up another thread prehaps with a warning (might not be the right word) to discuss the imprinting and the baby for example -we were not sure JBI, Charm and myself is some of the topics may be out of bounds. Kelby has some great points to offer also.

Thanks
Jo

This is one of the funniest threads on the board.

Welcome to the fun zone pull up a chair and be prepared to be entertained

PS what are your thoughts on the novels by the way - no need to be scared we will play nice - maybe

[*Classic*Charm*]

I find myself agreeing both with you and stlukes.

Ultimately I'm somewhat of an elitist. I will choose Proust and Shakespeare over Stephen King or Stephanie Meyer in the long run, but occasional distractions are necessary.

Being somewhat of a film buff, I prefer watching classic films like Citizen Kane, 2001: A space odyssey over 300, or Spider-man 3, but occasional exersions into the cliche, weak, popular art is easier on the mind. Occasionally, I enjoy watching plots that are poor, acting peformances that are empty, and direction that is sloppy. This is more psychological than aesthetic.

With literature, I'm slightly different. I have not read a "crap" novel in perhaps about 5 years - I've soley dedicated myself to reading classics and well-recieved literature. This is because the reading of a novel usually takes much longer than watching a movie, and I simply don't have the time to waste reading some penny-dreadful. If I had fantastic mental capabilities and could read a book a day, this might be different, but as it stands, my time is valuable.

In the long run, I too, will choose to read Shakespeare over Stephenie Meyer. No question, if I had to pick one over the other. No question at all. As you say, it's an occasional distraction. I read the four of them quickly, and now have the reading of them out of my system. That doesn't mean that some other time when I require some fluff again I won't reread them, but for now I'm done. Back to what I was reading before. part of it also comes from what I study at school. As much as I love studying science, I find it really doesn't allow much in the way of creative thinking. With a heavy curriculum that's really destroying my imagination, I need something completely absurd.

That's funny, though, because when it comes to film I'm the opposite. I cannot stand to sit through a bad film.

Welcome to the fun zone pull up a chair and be prepared to be entertained

PS what are your thoughts on the novels by the way - no need to be scared we will play nice - maybe

Oh yeah, we're just a riot.

[Allannah]

Yeah, I'm surprised the book was, like, accepted because of that lol.
edit: imprinting, I mean.

[Joreads]

OK guys I have checked with one of the lovely mods here and we have permission to discuss the baby, the imprinting and anything relating to the books. Lets be careful to keep it about the books I would hate for any of us to get in trouble and end up .

[*Classic*Charm*]

OK guys I have checked with one of the lovely mods here and we have permission to discuss the baby, the imprinting and anything relating to the books. Lets be careful to keep it about the books I would hate for any of us to get in trouble and end up .

haha excellent

I wish she hadn't had the baby. Straight up. It ruined my happy picture.

[kandaurov]

Good then! Well, apparently the point is that they're brainwashing teens with pro-life propaganda. Is that it? Sure looks like it anyway.

[Joreads]

haha excellent

I wish she hadn't had the baby. Straight up. It ruined my happy picture.

The birth of the baby didn't worry me so much as the imprinting of the babies did.

Why did the baby bother you? Actually it is kind of a Hollywood ending isn't it everyone gets what they want.

[*Classic*Charm*]

The birth of the baby didn't worry me so much as the imprinting of the babies did.

Why did the baby bother you? Actually it is kind of a Hollywood ending isn't it everyone gets what they want.

Because she and Edward were supposed to have a perfect obsessive teenage romance forever. And now they have responsibilities which ruins the perfection. Obviously, I like this story because of completely impossible it is in real life to have such a romance.

The imprinting didn't bother me, really. There is no sexual desire while the child is that young. It's merely a caring uncle type thing.

[MattG]

PS what are your thoughts on the novels by the way - no need to be scared we will play nice - maybe

Unlike a good number of the critics, I actually did read the first book. It was OK, the characters were a little young for me to really connect with both in literal age and in insight, but I don't have anything against it. I certainly wasn't compelled enough to go get the second book.

I think it's funny that Raymond Chandler, for example, wrote pulp & 'trash' before his work was considered literature. I'd wager that a lot of folks who find themselves shelved in the 'classics of literature' section would be surprised that their work is featured there were they alive to see it. Ask Harper Lee if you don't believe me.

[JBI]

Unlike a good number of the critics, I actually did read the first book. It was OK, the characters were a little young for me to really connect with both in literal age and in insight, but I don't have anything against it. I certainly wasn't compelled enough to go get the second book.

I think it's funny that Raymond Chandler, for example, wrote pulp & 'trash' before his work was considered literature. I'd wager that a lot of folks who find themselves shelved in the 'classics of literature' section would be surprised that their work is featured there were they alive to see it. Ask Harper Lee if you don't believe me.

I still think Raymond Chandler wrote pulp and trash, and I don't know many who consider him to be that great a literary mind, perhaps merely a significant developer of a genre that for the most part is pulp and trash.