let's just ban fiction altogether.
-noah[/quote]
Books, films, phenom: Harry Potter
22yes, also, kids should not be allowed to watch any movies anymore, ever, except for Empire of the Sun. they'll only read books, cause, y'know, it takes like 10 times longer, or more. also, they'll only be allowed to read the longest books around. lessee... russian fiction can stay. um, little women, moby dick, the stand... but they can't watch the tv-movie version of the stand. not because it sucks, but more on principle, y'know?
for the most part, i hate reading books. i find it to be a really inefficient way of wasting my time. i feel i can waste my time much more effectively by playing guitar, playing video games, watching tv, etc. books just waste *way* too much time. the movie only wastes a couple hours.
harry potter rules!
H!
A!
R R Y!
P O T!
T E R!
let kids read it. what should they be reading instead?
and what does this even mean, anyways?
i don't get it. aren't "reading" and "expedience" pretty much antithetical? movies are expedient, books are not, something like that? and what kid is first exposed to this paradigm by a BOOK? kids learn expedience from having parents who both work full time, and having microwave ovens, and having high-speed internet, and oy vey, everybody with the cell phones!!! etc etc.
in conclusion, go move to montana, ya damn dirty hippie!
for the most part, i hate reading books. i find it to be a really inefficient way of wasting my time. i feel i can waste my time much more effectively by playing guitar, playing video games, watching tv, etc. books just waste *way* too much time. the movie only wastes a couple hours.
harry potter rules!
H!
A!
R R Y!
P O T!
T E R!
let kids read it. what should they be reading instead?
and what does this even mean, anyways?
And it's exactly kids who shouldn't be reading this. What worse time is there to be exposed to this kind of paradigm of expedience over significance than when you're learning to frame the world?
i don't get it. aren't "reading" and "expedience" pretty much antithetical? movies are expedient, books are not, something like that? and what kid is first exposed to this paradigm by a BOOK? kids learn expedience from having parents who both work full time, and having microwave ovens, and having high-speed internet, and oy vey, everybody with the cell phones!!! etc etc.
in conclusion, go move to montana, ya damn dirty hippie!
Books, films, phenom: Harry Potter
23alex wrote:No, the author should have been clearer. But it's the next paragraph that deals with the problem with Harry Potter.
It's her choice to be clear or obtuse as she sees fit. Clarity is something that is handy for journalism, but fiction? C'mon! That's like asking bands to write songs that are easier to understand. And that means no more Faust!
alex wrote:And it's exactly kids who shouldn't be reading this. What worse time is there to be exposed to this kind of paradigm of expedience over significance than when you're learning to frame the world? The patterns determine how you interpret things for the rest of your life.
I assume you'd have folks introducing their children to the written word via Pynchon? I wholeheartedly agree with Tim that anything that gets kids reading more and watching TV and surfing the Internet less is a good thing. And a kid who is actually reading and appreciating books at a young age is more likely to be able to break out of this "paradigm of expedience of significance" when they're older. Discouraging kids from reading simple but wholesome books is like discouraging them from listening to "bad" music. What's the point? If you stifle their enjoyment of music or books, you're just ensuring that they lose interest before ever finding the "good" music or books or whatever.
Kids read all sorts of stupid shit. I remember filling my young head with Encyclopedia Brown and those goddamn Ramona Quimby books and you'd be a fool to believe that they shape my interpretation of things to this day (other than that I still remember a lot of the solutions to the "cases" - this has proven useful for predicting the outcomes of many an episode of Forensic Files, let me tell ya).
Read on, little wizard,
Dan
Books, films, phenom: Harry Potter
24No, the author should have been clearer.
ok
i'll let vlad nabokov, w.s. burroughs, thomas pynchon, william faulkner, and james joyce know that next time i see them
Books, films, phenom: Harry Potter
25JK Rowling’s books exist largely because she’s a politically fashionable book-industry construct. If Interpol gets people to buy Joy Division records does that make them a good band? Why not just get a huge media blitz behind Joy Division themselves?
And people are presuming a lot of high / low art distinctions that I never made.
When the guy I quoted talked about clarity he was addressing the author, not the reader and he said it to allay perceptions that his previous sentence was pro-obfuscation. The controversial part of the thing I quoted should be this, I think:
“However, writers like JK Rowling use cliches and meaningless or superfluous words in monotonous cadence, to help the eye slide across the page. Writers like JK Rowling do not repay close attention, in fact, they deflect it.”
Too many helicopters you haven’t read any of the books yet are the most frequent
poster on this thread. You in particular hawking “efficient” means of communicating is grossly dishonest or at least self-deluded, and anyone who claims yours are mere sins of omission is also grossly deluded.
In 1997 I played the Faust Tapes for two high school sophomores whose dominant musical touchstones at that point were almost wholly Clear Channel- derived. It was the coolest thing they’d ever heard and they are now Faust fans.
And people are presuming a lot of high / low art distinctions that I never made.
When the guy I quoted talked about clarity he was addressing the author, not the reader and he said it to allay perceptions that his previous sentence was pro-obfuscation. The controversial part of the thing I quoted should be this, I think:
“However, writers like JK Rowling use cliches and meaningless or superfluous words in monotonous cadence, to help the eye slide across the page. Writers like JK Rowling do not repay close attention, in fact, they deflect it.”
Too many helicopters you haven’t read any of the books yet are the most frequent
poster on this thread. You in particular hawking “efficient” means of communicating is grossly dishonest or at least self-deluded, and anyone who claims yours are mere sins of omission is also grossly deluded.
In 1997 I played the Faust Tapes for two high school sophomores whose dominant musical touchstones at that point were almost wholly Clear Channel- derived. It was the coolest thing they’d ever heard and they are now Faust fans.
Books, films, phenom: Harry Potter
26alex wrote:JK Rowling’s books exist largely because she’s a politically fashionable book-industry construct.
Or she's a former homeless woman who now makes more ducats than the queen.
Quitcher hating.
And it's exactly kids who shouldn't be reading this. What worse time is there to be exposed to this kind of paradigm of expedience over significance than when you're learning to frame the world? The patterns determine how you interpret things for the rest of your life.
Actually, children take more words into their vocabulary by consuming lots of different types of books, Harry Potter included. Calling her language "superfluous" (from that quote) doesn't stick. It's the context clues from the texts that provides meaning and allows kids to know more about language and thereby the world around them because all the words we take in at those early ages (from a Childhood Development standpoint) allow us labels and signifiers of our environments.
Grad school theory is still just "theory"--Picking and choosing what kids read from children's lit based on the misunderstandings of an elitist ideal about "quality" kidlit is fairly short sighted and assumes a lot more than being able to enjoy high and low art.
Too many helicopters you haven’t read any of the books yet are the most frequent
poster on this thread.
No shit. That's his thing.
In 1997 I played the Faust Tapes for two high school sophomores whose dominant musical touchstones at that point were almost wholly Clear Channel- derived. It was the coolest thing they’d ever heard and they are now Faust fans.
Finally, a big brother we can all look up to. Maybe you should do PR for Joy Division.
Faiz
Books, films, phenom: Harry Potter
27oh, well there's maybe a touch of sarcasm in some of my posts on this thread. but not the cheerleading part, that was legitimate.
i don't give a shit about whether an author communicates efficiently or writes a long and winding book. i don't give two shits, either. i liked the Celestine Prophecy, which many folks will say is an example of terrible, *terrible* writing. i like Lovecraft, and he basically invented Scooby Doo, writing the exact same fucking story over and over. and i love it.
go ahead an condemn the potter books for teaching kids something about expedience (you still haven't clarified what you were attempting to say with that sentence). and call me deluded. it's all good.
i just wanted to step up and point out that what you're preaching sounds like fancy-pants art-school-student bullshit to me. that's all. i guess i should've said it in fewer words? darn.
and please do lemme know what other specifications you'd like to throw out there as proper course of action for authors, me, whoever.
no. NO. her books exist largely because she fucking wrote them, that's why. your whole angle here reeks of "i know better than everyone on the planet". let's see, so her books only exist because more people want to buy them than anyone else's books, and the only reason people want to buy them is because they're fucking stupid and are being goaded into it by a manipulative book-mongering industry that can sell what's fashionable? i'm reading a lot into your statement there. maybe you could clarify that one the same time as you clarify the part about how Rowling's style of authoring a book teaches a kid that expedience is more important than substance.
one thing i'd like to say and make sure it's clear as day. i've been complimented before on my success in lucidly conveying precisely what i'm attempting to convey. i've also been told that in my writing, i have OCD or some other disorder, that i am unable to hold a clear train of thought, that my writing makes little-to-no sense. the fact that there are differing schools of thought on this suggests that it is more a function of subjectivity, a function of what the reader brings to the table in terms of their reading comprehension style.
did that last paragraph make any sense to you, or do you find there to be something wrong with it? did you understand the point i left between the lines? or was it too vague? but you did at least get the extremely focused gist of what i was saying, right?
here's an extension of what i'm trying to elucidate for ya
bravo! welcome to critical thinking. the next step would be to move forward rather than stay in that spot and bitch. let's examine this a little. "do not repay close attention, in fact, they deflect it".
first of all, i tend to think that's improper grammar if you wanna be all bitch about it, i think there's a thing called a semicolon that's the proper tool for connecting two related but separate sentences. or maybe use the word "but" in front of "in fact". whatever, that's just what i got outta grammar class. and i'm not the one with a bug up my ass about literary merits here, am i?
but let's focus on the reasoning behind that statement. inherent in that criticism of rowling's work is the assumption that repaying close attention (meaning having a depth that opens the art up even more as it is evaluated in a more than perfunctory fashion) is good, and the opposite (which can be essentially be boiled down to "what you see is what you get") is bad.
this is essentially the same thing as saying "pop music sucks because it's superficial". the thing that's missing from these sort of self-righteous statements is an understanding that not all people want some fancy, super-deep piece of high art in front of them. in fact, MOST people DON'T. i tend to believe that if you took Spiderland (a great example of a work that DOES repay close attention) and pushed it on the masses in the same way that britney spears is pushed on the masses, i'll betcha they wouldn't sell 5 million records or sell out arena tours.
what's absent from this criticism you're quoting, or so it seems to me, is an understanding of human beings. it seems like something a college professor would say, living in his college professor world, thinking and thinking, and not really experiencing real life with real people in it.
my wasn't that an inefficient message. i apologize in advance for any delusion in there. especially the part where i deflect your calling me delusional back onto the jackass you're quoting.
cheers
i don't give a shit about whether an author communicates efficiently or writes a long and winding book. i don't give two shits, either. i liked the Celestine Prophecy, which many folks will say is an example of terrible, *terrible* writing. i like Lovecraft, and he basically invented Scooby Doo, writing the exact same fucking story over and over. and i love it.
go ahead an condemn the potter books for teaching kids something about expedience (you still haven't clarified what you were attempting to say with that sentence). and call me deluded. it's all good.
i just wanted to step up and point out that what you're preaching sounds like fancy-pants art-school-student bullshit to me. that's all. i guess i should've said it in fewer words? darn.
and please do lemme know what other specifications you'd like to throw out there as proper course of action for authors, me, whoever.
JK Rowling’s books exist largely because she’s a politically fashionable book-industry construct.
no. NO. her books exist largely because she fucking wrote them, that's why. your whole angle here reeks of "i know better than everyone on the planet". let's see, so her books only exist because more people want to buy them than anyone else's books, and the only reason people want to buy them is because they're fucking stupid and are being goaded into it by a manipulative book-mongering industry that can sell what's fashionable? i'm reading a lot into your statement there. maybe you could clarify that one the same time as you clarify the part about how Rowling's style of authoring a book teaches a kid that expedience is more important than substance.
one thing i'd like to say and make sure it's clear as day. i've been complimented before on my success in lucidly conveying precisely what i'm attempting to convey. i've also been told that in my writing, i have OCD or some other disorder, that i am unable to hold a clear train of thought, that my writing makes little-to-no sense. the fact that there are differing schools of thought on this suggests that it is more a function of subjectivity, a function of what the reader brings to the table in terms of their reading comprehension style.
did that last paragraph make any sense to you, or do you find there to be something wrong with it? did you understand the point i left between the lines? or was it too vague? but you did at least get the extremely focused gist of what i was saying, right?
here's an extension of what i'm trying to elucidate for ya
Writers like JK Rowling do not repay close attention, in fact, they deflect it.
bravo! welcome to critical thinking. the next step would be to move forward rather than stay in that spot and bitch. let's examine this a little. "do not repay close attention, in fact, they deflect it".
first of all, i tend to think that's improper grammar if you wanna be all bitch about it, i think there's a thing called a semicolon that's the proper tool for connecting two related but separate sentences. or maybe use the word "but" in front of "in fact". whatever, that's just what i got outta grammar class. and i'm not the one with a bug up my ass about literary merits here, am i?
but let's focus on the reasoning behind that statement. inherent in that criticism of rowling's work is the assumption that repaying close attention (meaning having a depth that opens the art up even more as it is evaluated in a more than perfunctory fashion) is good, and the opposite (which can be essentially be boiled down to "what you see is what you get") is bad.
this is essentially the same thing as saying "pop music sucks because it's superficial". the thing that's missing from these sort of self-righteous statements is an understanding that not all people want some fancy, super-deep piece of high art in front of them. in fact, MOST people DON'T. i tend to believe that if you took Spiderland (a great example of a work that DOES repay close attention) and pushed it on the masses in the same way that britney spears is pushed on the masses, i'll betcha they wouldn't sell 5 million records or sell out arena tours.
what's absent from this criticism you're quoting, or so it seems to me, is an understanding of human beings. it seems like something a college professor would say, living in his college professor world, thinking and thinking, and not really experiencing real life with real people in it.
my wasn't that an inefficient message. i apologize in advance for any delusion in there. especially the part where i deflect your calling me delusional back onto the jackass you're quoting.
cheers
Books, films, phenom: Harry Potter
29well, even thought this thread seems pretty negative,
i'm bringing it back anyway
I for one, am a huge Harry Potter fan - I don't read these books because they are written well (because they aren't), I think JK Rowling has a fantastic imagination, and each book that comes out proves that the story is only going to get better. If you haven't read the books, your opinion is completely invalid when you say it's crap. Give the books a chance, they're easy reads (and so what if they're made for kids?! - in fact, if you've read the books, you'd know know that the last two books to come out were extremely dark, and not really meant for young children)
anyway, i just preordered my Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince book today, because i'm undereducated from reading too many poorly written books when i was younger, and these are the only type of books i can comprehend
i'm bringing it back anyway
I for one, am a huge Harry Potter fan - I don't read these books because they are written well (because they aren't), I think JK Rowling has a fantastic imagination, and each book that comes out proves that the story is only going to get better. If you haven't read the books, your opinion is completely invalid when you say it's crap. Give the books a chance, they're easy reads (and so what if they're made for kids?! - in fact, if you've read the books, you'd know know that the last two books to come out were extremely dark, and not really meant for young children)
anyway, i just preordered my Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince book today, because i'm undereducated from reading too many poorly written books when i was younger, and these are the only type of books i can comprehend
Books, films, phenom: Harry Potter
30As a soon-to-be elementary school teacher, I am currently reading lots of "newer" childrens' literature (ie, stuff that wasn't around when I was a kid) that is better than Harry Potter. Harry Potter is NOT (quite) CRAP, but I can't say I recommend them for adults because its quite likely you'll hate them, and hence be soured on the fact that kids like them, which is a GOOD thing.
I will recommend Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events books (I think the 12th one is out now, of a series of 13) to kids and adults alike. These books are really funny, weird, and touching. Mr. Snicket/Handler is also a much more engaging author than Rowling, and his writing has much more personality.[/i]
I will recommend Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events books (I think the 12th one is out now, of a series of 13) to kids and adults alike. These books are really funny, weird, and touching. Mr. Snicket/Handler is also a much more engaging author than Rowling, and his writing has much more personality.[/i]