Twilight

[Joreads]

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

[Beautifull]

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

I agree I AGREE I AGREE!!!!!!

[Joreads]

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

[Beautifull]

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

[Stargazer86]

{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

[MarkBastable]

.... 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.

[LitNetIsGreat]

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.

[mystery_spell]

UGH. Twilight. >_<

[*Classic*Charm*]

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.

[Stargazer86]

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

[islandclimber]

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...

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...

[Mathor]

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.

[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.

[islandclimber]

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?

[Scheherazade]

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.