# What is the "literary spectrum"?



## Robdemanc (Jan 3, 2012)

Please don't think I am being elitist or trying to create any prejudice in reading (because I hate literary snobishness), but I know there is a "ranking" in literature.  For example, someone might consider Stephanie Meyers books to be low down on the list of great literature, whereas the Bronte's might be high on the list.

How much snobbery is there?  Also has anyone noticed that Science Fiction seems to suffer when it comes to literature?  It seems books of that Genre are overlooked by critics, and I think that is unfair, some of the best books in history have been SF.


----------



## C.M. Aaron (Jan 3, 2012)

I always assumed the snobbery came from professors of English Literature - people who claim to have authority in the world of writing but who never had to make a living by writing and selling books. You know what they say about professors - those who can, do; those who can't, teach. I get the sense that some agents got into the publishing business because they wanted to help produce the next great work of literature, and they resent having to produce commercial fiction instead. Literary critics are the same way. They really want to critique literature, and they resent having to do commercial fiction for a living. It probably starts in school where we all get our first exposure to reading. English teachers at both high school and college level have become so divorced from the real world that the rest of us live in. Business leaders complain about the college graduates they hire who can't write a basic business memo because they were taught to write in a literary style with flowery language. Too many people come out of school believing what their teachers told them about all reading and writing being high art. Too few people realize that most people are not interested in high art. Commercial fiction, by definition, sells because that is what people want to read. Literature as high art, not so much. But people working in the book world probably got there because they love the literature they read in school.   JMHO   C.M.


----------



## Sam (Jan 3, 2012)

It's an interesting topic. 

As a lover of reading, I'll try any book. I soldiered through the first two of Meyer's _Twilight _series because I was told they were brilliant. A lot of the so-called classics are, for me, boring. The writing may be brilliant, but nothing really happens. At least there's a story -- albeit it a poor one -- in _Twilight. _That doesn't mean it could stand against _Jane Eyre _or _Ulysses _in the mind of English professors, but isn't it saying something when people would prefer to read Meyer over Bronte or Joyce? It tells me they aren't interested in  reading aesthetic prose. They want a story. 

That's where I agree fully with what C.M. has said above. The average reader on the street does not look for books which are written with beautiful prose. If you take a copy of _Ulysses _and _Harry Potter _onto the streets and gave people the choice of which one they would like to read, 90% would pick the latter. Most readers want a story which will grip them, and all but the most dedicated reader or lover of language will turn their nose up at prose littered with words above their level. 

A good story, told simply and directly, will sell. As I've said many times, most readers don't care about the writing. They read a book for the story. That's why people like Stepenie Meyer and Dan Brown are millionaires. They write stories people want, and will pay, to read.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jan 3, 2012)

Snobbery is endemic to society, if it's not books it's it is Air Jordans, if it's not them it is my Porsche your Ford, my Apple your Acer. I have a fantasy where some snob says to me:

"Do you know who my father is?"

To which I hope for the opportunity to reply:

"Try asking your mother, she might have been sober that night..."


----------



## Jon M (Jan 3, 2012)

Well I'll just say at the outset that I'm probably somewhat of an elitist when it comes to literature, and to be honest that doesn't bother me so much. Some books are worth my time and some are not. I started pretty late, both as a serious reader and writer -- beginning in my thirties -- and the way I see it I only have a limited amount of time here and I don't want to waste my time reading garbage. Also, since I am trying to improve as a writer, I worry that if I fill my head with some of this nonsense it will eventually affect the quality of my work. A you-are-what-you-read sort of thing.

How do I know what is garbage without actually reading it? Reviews from other people mostly. I'll give the popular stuff twenty or so pages to grab me. After that I'm out. Recently I asked a friend to borrow a copy of _The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo_ to see what the hype was all about, and the beginning just seemed like it was so loaded down with exposition. Even some of the character dialogue seemed like thinly disguised exposition. Compare that to _All the Pretty Horses_, which I was reading at the same time (and still am), and the difference in quality is readily apparent. Immediate scenes, fresh and vivid use of language, interesting characters.


----------



## philistine (Jan 3, 2012)

Sam W said:


> It's an interesting topic.
> 
> As a lover of reading, I'll try any book. I soldiered through the first two of Meyer's _Twilight _series because I was told they were brilliant. A lot of the so-called classics are, for me, boring. The writing may be brilliant, but nothing really happens. At least there's a story -- albeit it a poor one -- in _Twilight. _That doesn't mean it could stand against _Jane Eyre _or _Ulysses _in the mind of English professors, *but isn't it saying something when people would prefer to read Meyer over Bronte or Joyce?* It tells me they aren't interested in  reading aesthetic prose. They want a story.



It certainly is. It says that most people are idiots; something which has been known for a very long time, by what is apparently a very small amount of people. It is also why we have a somewhat decided, albeit varying time period in which things have been deemed 'classic'. That is, anything after it, is, and will continue to be at what is an astonishingly increasing rate-- shit.

Being an elitist isn't a bad thing. Anyone who is convinced that it is needs to re-evaluate their opinion.


----------



## Robdemanc (Jan 3, 2012)

Thanks for your great replies.  I think CM Aron says what I was thinking, that the snobbery came from acedemia.   At school we were forced to read certain choice books, and although they are well written they are often of another time which is hard for youngsters to relate to.

The reason I started this discussion is because over the last year I have been reading some varied books.  Recently I finished one that was a spooky pshycological story, it was a fine story but I thought it was terribly written and wondered if this is done on purpose because they want the less read people to read again.  I also read some old classics and am currently a third of the way through Hardy's  Tess of the Durbervilles, and I can appreciate its style.  I have also read some kids books and I also forced myself through the first three Twilight books.  On the whole I can appreciate the older classics but I think the snobbery is redundant in our day and age because writing has changed so much since then.  The Stephanie Meyer books to me were silly, although I can understand why teenage girls might love them.


----------



## Robdemanc (Jan 3, 2012)

johnM said:


> Well I'll just say at the outset that I'm probably somewhat of an elitist when it comes to literature, and to be honest that doesn't bother me so much. Some books are worth my time and some are not. I started pretty late, both as a serious reader and writer -- beginning in my thirties -- and the way I see it I only have a limited amount of time here and I don't want to waste my time reading garbage. Also, since I am trying to improve as a writer, *I worry that if I fill my head with some of this nonsense it will eventually affect the quality of my work. A you-are-what-you-read sort of thing*.
> 
> How do I know what is garbage without actually reading it? Reviews from other people mostly. I'll give the popular stuff twenty or so pages to grab me. After that I'm out. .



I have thought that too but have noticed that it is only those books that leave an impression that inspire me or comes through in my writing.  So if I do read something rubbish I tend not to worry because it is forgotton as soon as it is put down.   

I also give books about 20 pages or so before I make my mind up whether to read on.


----------



## Robdemanc (Jan 3, 2012)

philistine said:


> It certainly is. *It says that most people are idiots; something which has been known for a very long time, by what is apparently a very small amount of people. *It is also why we have a somewhat decided, albeit varying time period in which things have been deemed 'classic'. That is, anything after it, is, and will continue to be at what is an astonishingly increasing rate-- shit.
> 
> Being an elitist isn't a bad thing. Anyone who is convinced that it is needs to re-evaluate their opinion.



That is very true.  The masses have been dumbed down so much over the last 30 or so years, and the majority seem to go there willingly, without even noticing.


----------



## Robdemanc (Jan 3, 2012)

Sam W said:


> As a lover of reading, I'll try any book. *I soldiered through the first two of Meyer's Twilight series because I was told they were brilliant. *



I read them because I saw they were selling well.  I found the first book ok and understood why it was a hit.  But the next two I couldn't appreciate at all.  I saw a film in the 1980's called Graveyard Shift about a married woman who argues with her husband, goes out one night and meets a vampire.  They fall in love and he manages to turn her into a vampire before the end of the film.  It is quite clear Meyer and the publishers are milking the Bella/Edward story.


----------



## felix (Jan 3, 2012)

philistine said:


> It certainly is. It says that most people are idiots; something which has been known for a very long time, by what is apparently a very small amount of people. It is also why we have a somewhat decided, albeit varying time period in which things have been deemed 'classic'. That is, anything after it, is, and will continue to be at what is an astonishingly increasing rate-- shit.
> 
> Being an elitist isn't a bad thing. Anyone who is convinced that it is needs to re-evaluate their opinion.





Robdemanc said:


> That is very true. The masses have been dumbed down so much over the last 30 or so years, and the majority seem to go there willingly, without even noticing.



It's incontrovertible that, relatively speaking, most people aren't intelligent, because by definition they couldn't be. However, I'm afraid that I must pronounce the idea of 'dumbing down' as drivel. 

Classic works are deemed 'classic' because they age well; they retain their relevance and meaning over time and so are worth keeping around. Books do not automatically gain 'Classic' status merely by being old, otherwise we'd have endless halls of Classic Literature, instead of the relatively small and yet still enormous collection that we do. The idea that all works written before a certain time are intrinsically better written and somehow more meaningful is ridiculous, especially after considering that a factor in deciding literature's worth is the reader's ability to relate to it. 
People haven't been dumbed down; in fact, the generations alive today are the most intelligent in history. The only things that have changed appreciably are language and technology, and technology has only freed people (blogs, social networking and the like). The perceived decline in language is little more than an irrational attachment to a form of English which is no longer spoken and the idea that it is 'better' or more 'proper English', which again, is ridiculous. Language inevitably evolves to suit the needs of society, and so deeming that inevitable change as a slump in people's state of mind is only going to impede you. 

Now, concerning the topic, I'd say that there definitely is snobbery, chiefly because I fight it every day. Whenever I pick up a Stephen King, despite the fact that I know that the story will be expertly crafted and written, and that I'll have a ball reading it, there's always a tiny voice in the back of my head which tells me to hide it from fellow shoppers. Additionally, finishing something supposedly 'great' never ceases to give me a little smile, smug and disgusting. 
Perhaps one day I'll be able to cure myself of it. I suspect not.


----------



## doghouse reilly (Jan 3, 2012)

As a Texan, I  remember Larry McMurtry's essay many years ago where he attempted to tear down Texas writing icons like J. Frank Dobie.  I saw it, and still see it as literary snobbery.  A lot of "Texas" writers have become defensive, although overall I think the overall quality if writing here has improved considerably.

I still like Dobie, but have a hard time with McMurtry.  I guess is if that makes me one of the great unwashed ignorant masses, so be it.

Doghouse Reilly


----------



## Robdemanc (Jan 3, 2012)

felix said:


> It's incontrovertible that, relatively speaking, most people aren't intelligent, because by definition they couldn't be. However, I'm afraid that I must pronounce the idea of 'dumbing down' as drivel.
> .



When I say dumbing down I mean in a general sense, not specific to literature.  Technology allows it to happen, calculators remove the need for mental arithmatic, film and television remove the need to read a story.....from listening to senior people it sounds like they had to use their heads to entertain themselves, now people only have to switch on a box or place a disc in a drawer.  Maybe it is a case of pros and cons, because computer games can be quite challenging to the brain (if you buy the right ones).

I think intelligence is a human trait, we are all intelligent at certain things.  It is difficult to pin down what we mean by it.  But education is something different, and I think the general education of people is going down hill.


----------



## felix (Jan 3, 2012)

In a general sense or not, people aren't dumbing down. The fact that calculators have rendered extensive skills in mental arithmetic obsolete and the fact that people now have access the creative output of the world in different and new medias by no means indicates a decrease in people's intelligence. Yes, children today can't rival their grandparent's addition skills, for a good reason; they have no need for a skill like that. Yes, people now sit in front of the television/computer/stereo and watch or listen to music, TV or film, which is only an improvement. The idea that those alive several generations ago were better off because, aside from theatre and novels, they had to sit in a chair and attempt to entertain themselves in a silent room every day is drivel. 
Every successive generation believes that it's living at the edge of a golden era, and elderly people alive today are no different. You'll feel that way, and so will I, but I'm it's just a failing of human beings.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 3, 2012)

felix said:


> Whenever I pick up a Stephen King, despite the fact that I know that the story will be expertly crafted and written, and that I'll have a ball reading it, there's always a tiny voice in the back of my head which tells me to hide it from fellow shoppers.



What's embarassing about reading Stephen King?


----------



## felix (Jan 3, 2012)

That's exactly what I always tell myself. But apparently the snob within thinks that it's 'popcorn'. 

Fortunately it never stops me. I love King.


----------



## Robdemanc (Jan 4, 2012)

felix said:


> In a general sense or not, people aren't dumbing down. The fact that calculators have rendered extensive skills in mental arithmetic obsolete and the fact that people now have access the creative output of the world in different and new medias by no means indicates a decrease in people's intelligence. Yes, children today can't rival their grandparent's addition skills, for a good reason; they have no need for a skill like that. Yes, people now sit in front of the television/computer/stereo and watch or listen to music, TV or film, which is only an improvement. The idea that those alive several generations ago were better off because, aside from theatre and novels, they had to sit in a chair and attempt to entertain themselves in a silent room every day is drivel.
> Every successive generation believes that it's living at the edge of a golden era, and elderly people alive today are no different. You'll feel that way, and so will I, but I'm it's just a failing of human beings.




I am not saying people are becoming less intelligent, I am saying they are educated less.  I think during the TV and video age (now DVD) there has been a steady narrowing of story telling, and how they are told.  Most Hollywood films don't ask the viewer to think, they tell the viewer how to think.  TV is like that too now.  Our saving grace is the internet.


----------



## felix (Jan 4, 2012)

Even that isn't true. Even things like heavily commercialised television drama series (Lost, Heroes etc) and video games have surprising depth, and some video games like those made by Bethesda Games are shockingly detailed. 

Agreed, Hollywood films are shallow. But it's Hollywood, it's always been that way. In fact, despite complaining, that's what people want from Hollywood; some explosions and wet bikinis. Leave the mushy 'depth' stuff to the professionals, right?


----------



## JosephB (Jan 4, 2012)

philistine said:


> It certainly is. It says that most people are idiots; something which has been known for a very long time, by what is apparently a very small amount of people. It is also why we have a somewhat decided, albeit varying time period in which things have been deemed 'classic'. That is, anything after it, is, and will continue to be at what is an astonishingly increasing rate-- shit.
> 
> Being an elitist isn't a bad thing. Anyone who is convinced that it is needs to re-evaluate their opinion.



I don’t jump to the conclusion that a person is an “idiot” because he or she reads books that don’t meet my standards. In my experience, what a person consumes for entertainment or enjoyment is a lousy indicator of intelligence. I know plenty of very smart and successful people who read purely because they like the distraction provided by lighter material. 

Being an elitist is bad if it means judging people based superficial criteria -- like what kind of books they read. Amazingly, some people just don’t give a crap about good literature or whatever you want to call it.


----------



## felix (Jan 4, 2012)

@Joe: Completely agree regarding how many use it as a distraction. What would you say about a person's bookcase? I ask because I tend to think that people's bookcases can tell you something about them; not what's on them, but how they're organised. 

I've been to some houses who have all of their 'proper' literature (hardbacks, classic collection) in the living room and then in their study they'll have a secret drawer of Andy McNab. But I've also been to some houses where their owners have it all out; if they're a tidy person you tend to see some kind of ordering system, and if not then it's all just thrown on there. 

I may be arguing for this because of my own bookshelf, as somebody pointed out to me that I've got Thus Spoke Zarathustra next to The Shining, and I quite like what it might say about me. Then again, that could be seen as a bad thing, so who knows?


----------



## Robdemanc (Jan 4, 2012)

felix said:


> Even that isn't true. Even things like heavily commercialised television drama series (Lost, Heroes etc) and video games have surprising depth, and some video games like those made by Bethesda Games are shockingly detailed.
> 
> Agreed, Hollywood films are shallow. But it's Hollywood, it's always been that way. In fact, despite complaining, that's what people want from Hollywood; some explosions and wet bikinis. Leave the mushy 'depth' stuff to the professionals, right?




Well I am sorry if you feel that things are getting more deep and intelligent in the commercial world of TV.


----------



## felix (Jan 4, 2012)

Depends on what you watch. Which is the same with books. And it's always been that way.


----------



## Robdemanc (Jan 4, 2012)

felix said:


> Depends on what you watch. Which is the same with books. And it's always been that way.



I just think most is the same recycled stuff from yesteryear on TV and modern television producers are very clever at production. They know how to keep people's eyes on the screen whether what they are seeing is worth watching or not.


----------



## felix (Jan 4, 2012)

I don't watch all that much television, so if you could list some examples it'd help me out, but what I do watch seems to be just fine. 

As far as producers producing television which people will watch...well...good? If they didn't, they'd be on the street? 

If you're making a crime show then there's only so much you can do, it's not like you can revolutionise a new series of CSI by setting it on God's cloud base, narrated by Elmo. It's always going to be similar to previous programs, but that doesn't make it any less meaningful (if you could call a program like CSI meaningful; I understand that it's a bad example).


----------



## Robdemanc (Jan 4, 2012)

CSI is a good example of overproduced, starved of content programmes.  I never saw Lost, but I saw a couple of Heroes but stopped watching because each scene appeared to give the impression something important was about to happen but it never did.  The "dumbing down" programmes would be X factor and the like.  But I stopped watching tv 2 years ago and have a much richer life now.


----------



## felix (Jan 4, 2012)

I'm afraid that I do have to agree with you to some extent because I refuse to watch television for the same reasons and only watch recommended programs when they become available in the shops, but claiming that people are becoming less intelligent because of the commercialisation of television is a baseless claim. Yes, X Factor is an abomination, but the - shall we say, ahem - less intelligent people who become so involved with such programmes are no more prevalent than they've ever been. 

(I think that perhaps we should agree to disagree in order to save the thread's intended subject, but good talk)


----------



## Sunny (Jan 4, 2012)

Robdemanc said:


> I read them because I saw they were selling well. I found the first book ok and understood why it was a hit. But the next two I couldn't appreciate at all. I saw a film in the 1980's called Graveyard Shift about a married woman who argues with her husband, goes out one night and meets a vampire. They fall in love and he manages to turn her into a vampire before the end of the film. It is quite clear Meyer and the publishers are milking the Bella/Edward story.



I loved them so much, I think I lived in my PJ's for the 5 days of vacation time I had off of work to read them. Dishes left undone, laundry left to pile over the basket, phone calls ignored, and I think I forgot to eat! I've never experienced excitment over a series like that since then. When I'd set the book down at night, I'd dream about the characters.

I stayed up for seventeen hours straight, and read the last book "Breaking Dawn" from start to finish. (768 pages) 

I was so drawn into that series, I did nothing but think about them for weeks on end. They're what got me interested in books. I never read books before them. It's likely because I'm a die-hard for romance, and they are the epitome of romance, so it only makes sense. I guess not _everyone _dislikes them like a lot of people on this forum see to.

I've read the entire series 5 times over, and will read them again soon. I've watched the movies too many times to say. So I guess the whole twilight phenomenon works with some of us, and they can keep milking my bank account. I'll buy her books anyday!


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 4, 2012)

"Edward!"

"Bella!"

"Bella!"

"Jacob!"

Edward squints his steely eyes. His skin glistens in the sunlight. Jacob snarls and growls. Bella looks at them both, and wonders what to do.

"Bella.."

"Edward?"

"Bella!"

"Jacob..."

:grief:

"If you turn into one of them, Bella, I'll have to kill you.."

"No, you wouldn't hurt me."

Suddenly, that brunette chick from the _Underworld_ jumps in, dressed in form-fitting black latex. "I smell a Lychen," she squints.

"Wrong story, Selene!"

"Ugh. Sorry. Third time this week.."


----------



## felix (Jan 4, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> "Edward!"
> 
> "Bella!"
> 
> ...



I'd definitely read that book. 

The only real problem that I have with the Twilight series (apart from the fact that they're _awful_) is that I've seen interviews with Stephanie Meyer, and she simply doesn't come across as being intelligent in the slightest. I can certainly understand the motivation behind writing commercial fiction; money, but I can tell in this case that she simply wasn't capable of doing any better.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 4, 2012)

felix said:


> @Joe: Completely agree regarding how many use it as a distraction. What would you say about a person's bookcase? I ask because I tend to think that people's bookcases can tell you something about them; not what's on them, but how they're organised.
> 
> I've been to some houses who have all of their 'proper' literature (hardbacks, classic collection) in the living room and then in their study they'll have a secret drawer of Andy McNab. But I've also been to some houses where their owners have it all out; if they're a tidy person you tend to see some kind of ordering system, and if not then it's all just thrown on there.
> 
> I may be arguing for this because of my own bookshelf, as somebody pointed out to me that I've got Thus Spoke Zarathustra next to The Shining, and I quite like what it might say about me. Then again, that could be seen as a bad thing, so who knows?



I don't really pay that much attention to other people's book shelves -- but I might, now that you've mentioned it. 

Ours are fairly organized, but that's my wife's doing -- and her books and mine are all mixed together. I have a lot of art and photography books too -- I guess that says something. My grandfather also left me some of his books -- a lot of them are to my taste, but some aren't. So I'm afraid you couldn't tell much about me from our bookshelves. 		 			:grin:


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 4, 2012)

felix said:


> I'd definitely read that book.
> 
> The only real problem that I have with the Twilight series (apart from the fact that they're _awful_) is that I've seen interviews with Stephanie Meyer, and she simply doesn't come across as being intelligent in the slightest. I can certainly understand the motivation behind writing commercial fiction; money, but I can tell in this case that she simply wasn't capable of doing any better.









See how Twilight works:http://theoatmeal.com/story/twilight


----------



## JosephB (Jan 4, 2012)

felix said:


> I'm afraid that I do have to agree with you to some extent because I refuse to watch television for the same reasons and only watch recommended programs when they become available in the shops, but claiming that people are becoming less intelligent because of the commercialisation of television is a baseless claim. Yes, X Factor is an abomination, but the - shall we say, ahem - less intelligent people who become so involved with such programmes are no more prevalent than they've ever been.



Yep. The crap-to-quality ratio for popular entertainment has a always been heavily lopsided to the crap side. It’s been that way forever and it always will be. What we see today isn't an indication of any kind of general dumbing-down. People love to hearken back to the golden age of movies or TV or some time when it was all supposed to be better -- but it never existed. It’s just that we’re still talking about and watching the cream of the crop from any given era. There are also more outlets for TV and movies than ever before -- so of course that means more stuff is being generated -- hence more crap than ever. For every _Madmen_ or _The Sopranos _there are dozens of awful-to-mediocre programs. Same as it ever was.


----------



## Sunny (Jan 4, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> "Edward!"
> 
> "Bella!"
> 
> ...


Oooooohhhh nooooo you didn't!!!! You didn't!!! 

Where is the dislike button!?!?!?! WHERE IS THE DISLIKE BUTTON, PEOPLE!?!!?!??!!


----------



## felix (Jan 4, 2012)

Sunny said:


> Oooooohhhh nooooo you didn't!!!! You didn't!!!
> 
> Where is the dislike button!?!?!?! WHERE IS THE DISLIKE BUTTON, PEOPLE!?!!?!??!!



Such a girl. 

They're not terrible, they do what they set out to do; entertain teenage girls. Judging by the hype, they do it pretty well. 

But they are a blight upon the history of humanity...


----------



## Sunny (Jan 4, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> View attachment 2581View attachment 2582
> 
> View attachment 2583
> 
> ...



YOU SUCK!!!! 

It's waaaayyyyy better than anything Ray Bradbury could put down on paper!!!!


----------



## Sunny (Jan 4, 2012)

felix said:


> Such a girl.
> 
> They're not terrible, they do what they set out to do; entertain teenage girls. Judging by the hype, they do it pretty well.
> 
> But they are a blight upon the history of humanity...



And, HEY! I'm not a teenage girl! Haven't been for awhile... So that argument doesn't work!!! Lol.

And I beg to differ!! They will be a classic, sitting along side all the greats one day!!!


----------



## felix (Jan 4, 2012)

Mmrr...no...please don't let that happen. 

I've seen menopausal women in the crowds at some of the film premiers, so yeah, my argument has limits. But you couldn't argue that they're intended to enlighten the adults of the world. At least I hope not.
_

I edited this post because I thought that menstrual was the same as menopausal. What a div. _


----------



## Sunny (Jan 4, 2012)

felix said:


> Mmrr...no...please don't let that happen.
> 
> I've seen post-menstrual women in the crowds at some of the film premiers, so yeah, my argument has limits. But you couldn't argue that they're intended to enlighten the adults of the world. At least I hope not.


Well no, they're not intended for adults... she was just lucky that some of us enjoy books written for the less mature! ;0)


----------



## Sunny (Jan 4, 2012)

felix said:


> _I edited this post because I thought that menstrual was the same as menopausal. What a div. _


HA HA HA... That's funny.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 4, 2012)

Sunny said:


> YOU SUCK!!!!
> 
> It's waaaayyyyy better than anything Ray Bradbury could put down on paper!!!!



LOL

A year ago, I was perusing the book store. I saw a book with a chess piece on the cover, and thought to myself "Ah, a chess book. Maybe something interesting in it." I play chess so any books on the matter intrigue me, especially one with the Queen on the cover. I picked it up and flipped it open, and was surprised to find myself reading about a girl panicking as she broke the news to her father that she was getting married. I read several pages before finally saying out loud, "what the hell is this?" and I looked back at the cover again.



I felt betrayed, fooled, tricked. I put the book back down and walked away, wondering, like Bella, what Jacob would think of the wedding. Argh! Stupid Stephanie Meyer and her catchy writing. ;D


----------



## Sunny (Jan 4, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> LOL
> 
> A year ago, I was perusing the book store. I saw a book with a chess piece on the cover, and thought to myself "Ah, a chess book. Maybe something interesting in it." I play chess so any books on the matter intrigue me, especially one with the Queen on the cover. I picked it up and flipped it open, and was surprised to find myself reading about a girl panicking as she broke the news to her father that she was getting married. I read several pages before finally saying out loud, "what the hell is this?" and I looked back at the cover again.
> 
> ...


Ooooohhh.. that's too funny! You're probably happy you didn't keep reading! The first time they have sex is a huge let down! Lol

That's what all us girls complain about... the girls in my age group anyway! We wait soooooo long for it to happen. 3 and a half books later, YES, It's here.. The moment has arrived!!!! I eagerly flip the pages with my heart racing... Then, what????!? What?!?!? I go back over the page numbers... 201, 202, 203... Yup.. that's right! I thought I must have got jipped and someone ripped a few of my pages out before I bought the stupid thing!!! Nope... they go into the water... and wake up the next day!!! BOOO I say... BOOOO!

Lol.


----------



## felix (Jan 4, 2012)

Sunny said:


> Ooooohhh.. that's too funny! You're probably happy you didn't keep reading! The first time they have sex is a huge let down! Lol
> 
> That's what all us girls complain about... the girls in my age group anyway! We wait soooooo long for it to happen. 3 and a half books later, YES, It's here.. The moment has arrived!!!! I eagerly flip the pages with my heart racing... Then, what????!? What?!?!? I go back over the number pages thinking I got gipped and someone ripped a few of my pages out before I bought the stupid thing!!! Nope... they go into the water... and wake up the next day!!! BOOO I say... BOOOO!
> 
> Lol.



Surely it's clear that if the book elevates your heart rate then it's purely entertainment and not a work of depth and substance? Characters having sex shouldn't be the motivation for reading a book, unless, you know, you're into that.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jan 4, 2012)

Rotten
Ordinary
You decide
Better
Impressive
Very good


----------



## Sunny (Jan 4, 2012)

felix said:


> Surely it's clear that if the book elevates your heart rate then it's purely entertainment and not a work of depth and substance? Characters having sex shouldn't be the motivation for reading a book, unless, you know, you're into that.


I guess that's why we're all different and enjoy different things! 

I definitely enjoy a book with some good love scenes! It's what I look for in my reading material! The characters in the books I read happen to have a lot of depth, and are far from shallow. Just because they have sex, doesn't mean they are shallow, and it surely doesn't mean the writing has no substance... that's just silly.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 4, 2012)

felix said:


> Surely it's clear that if the book elevates your heart rate then it's purely entertainment and not a work of depth and substance? Characters having sex shouldn't be the motivation for reading a book, unless, you know, you're into that.



From the brief excerpts I've read, the consumation of their relationship is something Bella is constantly referring to as something, the only thing, she really wants. The reader is bombarded with the anticipation of it over and over again... it's literary tension built in the reader, that can only be satisfied with a climax (no pun intended! ) and resolution.


----------



## felix (Jan 4, 2012)

No, of course not, but it seemed like you were saying that you read the book merely to get to the part when they got busy, and were disappointed by the lack of raunchy details.And I'm arguing that this is proof towards there being a spectrum of literature, not that some books are 'lesser'. Entertainment and romance are equally as much a motivation as anything else, but Breaking Dawn is never going to sit beside The Magus, because they're written for very different purposes.



			
				KyleColorado said:
			
		

> From the brief excerpts I've read, the consumation of their relationship is something Bella is constantly referring to as something, the only thing, she really wants. The reader is bombarded with the anticipation of it over and over again... it's literary tension built in the reader, that can only be satisfied with a climax



Yeah I've read bits too and got the same impression. But that doesn't diffuse the fact that there's no substance to the work. Bella's motivations for loving anybody aren't explored beyond teenage angst. It's all for the hot stuff, which is fine, as long as that's stated outright, and you don't try and sneak it onto the bookshelves as anything other than teenage chick-lit.


----------



## Sunny (Jan 4, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> From the brief excerpts I've read, the consumation of their relationship is something Bella is constantly referring to as something, the only thing, she really wants. The reader is bombarded with the anticipation of it over and over again... it's literary tension built in the reader, that can only be satisfied with a climax (no pun intended! ) and resolution.


That's exactly right!!! 

It's what you're left wanting as much as Bella. You feel like you are Bella, and you're being loved by Edward! It's fantastic! 

Then, the fact that he changes her to stay with him forever is the icing on the cake... wonderful! I feel like cracking Twilight open right now, just to smile! Lol


----------



## Sunny (Jan 4, 2012)

felix said:


> No, of course not, but it seemed like you were saying that you read the book merely to get to the part when they got busy, and were disappointed by the lack of raunchy details.
> 
> And I'm arguing that this is proof towards there being a spectrum of literature, not that some books are 'lesser'. Entertainment and romance are equally as much a motivation as anything else, but Breaking Dawn is never going to sit beside The Magus, because they're written for very different purposes.


I _was_ disappointed by the lack or raunchy details! It wasn't the only reason I was reading them; there are plenty of things going on. Bella being hunted, and Edward having to protect her from the bad vampires. Edward leaves her because he thinks she deserves a better life without him. He's so selfless, and would do anything for her. That's what a lot of girls like to read. NOT ALL mind you. Some girls find it non-sense, but not me. 

I guess we'll find out where Twilight sits in the future. I'm not an expert on the writing you're talking about, so I won't argue the point. You may be right. I just like what I like, and I think it's okay to like what others find crappy reading material.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 4, 2012)

Lends weight to Dwight Swain's lesson (in Chapter 5 of _Techniques of the Selling Writer_) that:

"Your reader reads fiction because it creates a pleasurable state of tension in (her), line by line, page by page."

It's all about the feelings~


----------



## felix (Jan 4, 2012)

Yes, that is what teenage girls like to read. It's escapism; they like to read about the Adventures of Ed and Jacob because they know that, aside from the fact that they're vampires and werewolves, people aren't like that. 

Escapism is a perfectly acceptable motivation behind a book. I indulge in it every day, I love Chris Ryan, Stephen King, Andy McNab. 

What's being debated is whether there's a distinction between that and something written with the sole intention of exploring the human condition, which I'd say there is. 

I like the term spectrum as used in the topic title. It's all different, but it's all equal.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 4, 2012)

I think writers like Stephanie Meyer are good at what they do. There are no ground-breaking insights in her writing, no thought-provoking passages, but her characters are alive and she keeps the reader on the edge of her seat. That, in itself, makes her a good writer (even if her subject matter could be considered simplistic), if you measure the good writing by the emotional investment it provokes from the reader.

There's an author and essayist whom I like, the late Loren Eiseley. His writings were cerebral and insightful. He wrote about deep concepts, like the future replacement of our species as reflected in the behavior of a squirrel he observed solving a puzzle (_The Fire Apes_ was the first of his writing that I was exposed to, and I found it inspiring and, for a non-fiction essay, it read suprisingly like a fiction short story). His writing is engaging, his prose colorful, but his subject matter is intellectual, not emotional, and for that reason, while he was a fantastic writer, his name will forever drift among the lower levels of obscurity, mentioned only by academics and literary intellectuals.

If you were to compare them on the literary spectrum, I'd say Loren Eiseley is at the "Cerebral" end, and Stephanie Meyer is at the "Emotional" end. Their value, though, is debatable, but I think it's safe to say that the writers at the Emotional end of the spectrum are much more popular, if only because emotions are much more easily accessible, and require "less work" from the reader for more immediate satisfaction.


----------



## Sunny (Jan 4, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> I think writers like Stephanie Meyer are good at what they do. There are no ground-breaking insights in her writing, no thought-provoking passages, but her characters are alive and she keeps the reader on the edge of her seat. That, in itself, makes her a good writer (even if her subject matter could be considered simplistic), if you measure the good writing by the emotional investment it provokes from the reader.
> 
> There's an author and essayist whom I like, the late Loren Eiseley. His writings were cerebral and insightful. He wrote about deep concepts, like the future replacement of our species as reflected in the behavior of a squirrel he observed solving a puzzle (_The Fire Apes_ was the first of his writing that I was exposed to, and I found it inspiring and, for a non-fiction essay, it read suprisingly like a fiction short story). His writing is engaging, his prose colorful, but his subject matter is intellectual, not emotional, and for that reason, while he was a fantastic writer, his name will forever drift among the lower levels of obscurity, mentioned only by academics and literary intellectuals.
> 
> If you were to compare them on the literary spectrum, I'd say Loren Eiseley is at the "Cerebral" end, and Stephanie Meyer is at the "Emotional" end. Their value, though, is debatable, but I think it's safe to say that the writers at the Emotional end of the spectrum are much more popular, if only because emotions are much more easily accessible, and require "less work" from the reader for more immediate satisfaction.


Well said! Here, here *holds up a glass full of something we like to drink* I couldn't have said it better myself... No seriously... I couldn't have! 

Except well... she does have a lot of thought-provoking passages. But hey, maybe that's just me. *shrugs*


----------



## thinkingaboutit (Jan 4, 2012)

Robdemanc said:


> I am not saying people are becoming less intelligent, I am saying they are educated less.



Disclaimer: I can only go by what I see in the US.

As a mother, I don't see this happening. Middle schools that offered true foreign language programs (as opposed to 1-term overviews) used to be rare. Now they are common. Calculators are used in school because the kids are taking the higher maths at younger and younger ages. My son, a sophomore, is taking classes that weren't even available to me until my junior and senior years.

It could be argued that bright students are simply being given more opportunities today than they ever have been. But the push toward the honors track begins around seventh grade, and many schools only require a middle B on the placement test(s) to get on that track.

I can say, though, that once on that track, the journey is arduous. At our school, it still only takes a middle B to be placed in a high-school honors course as opposed to a regular college-prep course, but it's a heck of a lot harder for students taking advanced classes to make those Bs.

Textbooks are on CDs, but textbooks are still used. There are podcasts, but those podcasts might be lectures.

I think technology has led to us pushing our children, too hard in some cases.


----------



## philistine (Jan 5, 2012)

> Education... has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.



- G. M. Trevelyan


----------



## JosephB (Jan 5, 2012)

Like a lot pithy quotes, that sounds profound at first blush, but it’s really just a shallow generalization. It really means what YOU think is “worth reading.”  

There will always be a small percentage of the population who will pursue literature that you might deem worth reading. But that happens regardless of and in most cases _despite_ what people are exposed to in school. People who are passionate about what _they _consider quality reading or literature have a hard time accepting that the rest of the population just doesn't care -- and the world is no better or worse because of it.


----------



## Robdemanc (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunny said:


> I loved them so much, I think I lived in my PJ's for the 5 days of vacation time I had off of work to read them. Dishes left undone, laundry left to pile over the basket, phone calls ignored, and I think I forgot to eat! I've never experienced excitment over a series like that since then. When I'd set the book down at night, I'd dream about the characters.
> 
> I stayed up for seventeen hours straight, and read the last book "Breaking Dawn" from start to finish. (768 pages)
> 
> ...



If they got people reading for the first time then that is a good thing.  The next step is to continue reading, preferably other authors.


----------



## Robdemanc (Jan 5, 2012)

felix said:


> I'm afraid that I do have to agree with you to some extent because I refuse to watch television for the same reasons and only watch recommended programs when they become available in the shops, but claiming that people are becoming less intelligent because of the commercialisation of television is a baseless claim. Yes, X Factor is an abomination, but the - shall we say, ahem - less intelligent people who become so involved with such programmes are no more prevalent than they've ever been.
> 
> (I think that perhaps we should agree to disagree in order to save the thread's intended subject, but good talk)



We can agree to disagree but can I make one thing clear, which you seem to overlook.  I am not claiming people are less intelligent, I am claiming that education levels have fallen.  Being educated and being intelligent are two completely different things.


----------



## Sunny (Jan 5, 2012)

Robdemanc said:


> If they got people reading for the first time then that is a good thing. The next step is to continue reading, preferably other authors.


The first sentence is very true. It's a very good thing. It started there, and now I want many new things in my life, I had no idea I'd ever want. Reading her books started me onto other books, and then got me thinking about writing eventually. So it really is a positive. I know many people who didn't read at all before her books, now are avid readers, myself included obviously. 

I read probably a novel every 2 days on average... when I'm not writing that is. So it's been a little over a month since I've cracked a book, but I do love other authors as well. Admittidely, I do stick with the YA genre mostly, but I like them, so I'm okay with enjoying what I enjoy, and not givin' a ___ what other people think about what I choose to read. But, I do also love adult books too. Just because I prefer to read books that don't have me scratching my head, trying to understand the hidden meanings, or trying to unscramble the poetic style, doesn't mean I'm less educated or intelligent in anyway. I just prefer to read what I prefer to read. I happen to like feeling good after a book, and romance plots are what I like and make me happy. 

Thanks for understanding how reading her books opened a whole new world for me. A world I had no idea I would ever enjoy!


----------



## Robdemanc (Jan 5, 2012)

Sunny said:


> *Admittidely, I do stick with the YA genre mostly*, but I like them, so I'm okay with enjoying what I enjoy, and not givin' a ___ what other people think about what I choose to read. But, I do also love adult books too. Just because I prefer to read books that don't have me scratching my head, trying to understand the hidden meanings, or trying to unscramble the poetic style, doesn't mean I'm less educated or intelligent in anyway. I just prefer to read what I prefer to read. I happen to like feeling good after a book, and romance plots are what I like and make me happy.
> 
> Thanks for understanding how reading her books opened a whole new world for me. A world I had no idea I would ever enjoy!



I have read a fair share of YA material, some good some bad.  I have read many childrens books while being an adult, and some of those books are for very young children.  I am doing it to increase my spectrum of reading.  I have been quite varied and gone for popular stuff as well as obscure stuff too.   I think it all helps.  

But I agree that Stephanie Meyer has done a service if she has got people reading and I thought the story of the first Twilight was revealed well.  I just got bored with the next one.   I am glad you have discovered reading and are now writing too.


----------

