Twilight

[Zee.]

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

[MarkBastable]

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.

[Mathor]

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.

[MarkBastable]

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?

[Mathor]

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.

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.

[kilted exile]

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?

[*Classic*Charm*]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[MarkBastable]

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.

[islandclimber]

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?

[*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.

[Joreads]

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

[*Classic*Charm*]

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

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.

[LitNetIsGreat]

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.

[LilyPan]

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?

[kelby_lake]

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.