the sentence "at least it gets kids to read" drives me nuts when it is applied to bad books, because it is like saying at least mcdonald's gets kids to eat. i don't think reading is as necessary to existence as eating, sure, but i do think that the analogy holds up. some people don't appreciate well-prepared healthy meals, and would prefer to subsist on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with the crusts cut off for apparently the rest of their lives, and if you're the parent who wants to prepare that meal day in and day out then i guess you can go ahead and do that, but don't expect me to think you're doing a good job with your "well at least he's eating!" and don't expect the school to back up your indulgence of your kid's dietary lack of imagination. i like to think that as parents we care enough about our children's health to see to it that they eat a decent amount of vegetables and we want the school to exhibit at least a basic understanding of what is nourishing as well. we may not expect our children to subsist on whole wheat crackers and fresh vegetables only, and especially at birthdays and christmas even i have been known to indulge the sweet tooth. similarly, one may indulge the darlings with a few "glittery unicorns and the dragon adventures" from time to time, but it should be presented as a exception to the rule of selecting books that engage the thinking brain as well as the pleasure centers. i think the reason we want children to read is not for the sake of the reading itself (we don't eat because "chewing is good for you"), but for the fact that it expands the horizons of their imagination and understanding and makes them better humans.
i have a more conflicted response when the "at least it gets kids to read" is applied to books being made into movies. i wasn't allowed to see movies until i'd read the book, and i apply the same rule to Squire Tuck's movie viewing. this ruined a lot of movies for me, because i had pictured the book in my mind perfectly and the director didn't always do right by my imagination. however, it did wonders for my critical thinking skills, deciding which things in a book were subject to interpretation, how far artistic license could reasonably extend, whether it's possible that i misunderstood the book and the screenwriter had understood it better, etc. Squire Tuck is following right along behind me and when he had a ten minute rant about the "scorning of the shire" i nearly ate my heart. so although we go about it in one direction ("you must read the book if you want to see the movie"), while i think many people tend to see the movie and then decide whether to read the book, i will concede that sometimes books into movies, and i mean great books into movies, can lead children to great books. lots of children read "charlotte's web" for the first time this winter (because of the movie), and while part of me feels like --how can they have not already read it and loved it?-- on the other hand, if it takes sending piles of cash to hollywood in order to get people sucked into "where's papa going with that ax?" then i'll accept it. some people need a cookbook to cook, they need to be inspired to do what might come naturally to other people. they need to see a picture of the finished product before they can imagine if they would like it for themselves. and as long as they accept that their version might come out differently, and as long as they're inspired to keep trying instead of throwing up their hands and dashing down to the drive-through... i guess i'm okay with that. i guess i can take off my judge's robes and sit down with the rest of the people at that table.
that said, if there is a hint of romance between jess and leslie; if janice is made to seem more worthy of mockery than pity ... i mean, i can handle the emo-girl sock arm thingies, but if they have changed the ending of this to make it one whit less painful and beautiful, i will go and punch david paterson repeatedly in the face.
patriarch- my father is crazy smart and he doesn't read books that aren't paperbacks with shiny embossed covers sold in airport bookstores. by which i mean to say: i agree with you-- some people aren't cut out to read. i'm not judging my dad's intellect, because he gets his thinking stimulation from lots of sources other than books (although i judge his reading taste pretty harshly).
Posted by: tuckova | January 22, 2007 at 07:35 PM
We were just discussing this very same thing (minus Terebithia) in my YA lit class - reading anything vs not reading - and I suppose I stand somewhere in the middle. I suppose ideally kids would read some quality stuff and some fluff stuff and in the process learn to distinguish between the two. Learn to go to certain books for the emotion and characters and imagination, and to set aside the ones that aren't fulfilling.
I've always been a book-before-movie person and driven people crazy by shredding a movie after seeing it. I can't just enjoy the movie on its own merits, most of the time. I've only made an exception a few times, mostly on accident (I HATE seeing 'based on the book by...' in opening credits when I never realized there was a book).
Posted by: jess | January 23, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Just food for thought: is it better for a young person to read a popcorn/cotton candy book that has a smart young protagonist of their own gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation rather than "classic literature" starring characters to whom the young reader cannot relate? And how do you find if a book is worthy to you without actually reading it?
Posted by: Jorja | January 24, 2007 at 04:34 AM
Jorja- These are interesting questions. I don't consider it an either/or proposition, though. I think it's possible to find great books that have protagonists of just about every stripe under the sun. I'm not so much comparing "classics" (like, say, Little Women) to pop fiction (like, say, Sweet Valley High) as I am wishing for an emphasis on more good quality literature (say, any Newbery book). I think the classics should be read in general, I think quality books should be read and more greatly emphasized, I think pop fiction can be read, in moderation.
I disagree with the supposition that people more easily relate to characters that share their sex, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, because I think that for many people it's through books that we are able to relate to characters that are different from us. A quality book should help you see the narrator's point of view, whether or not you share the narrator's eye color. Right?
I judge books by their covers, by their authors, by reading their reviews, and (if those three don't help), by reading the first chapter.
Posted by: tuckova | January 24, 2007 at 06:59 AM
I agree that it's sometimes the characters most outwardly different from ourselves that we can relate to best. It's good to see yourself in books - people like you - but with a great book, it doesn't matter. I could probably make an argument that I've learned more about myself by reading about people who are unlike me (or being with people who are unlike me) than by almost any other means.
Posted by: jess | January 24, 2007 at 07:29 PM
"it is like saying at least mcdonald's gets kids to eat"
--that was great. but it's the obvious American approach to reading, after all. who wants good meals when you can have something big and fatty? why have something make you think when you can watch the movie version? who cares about quality when quantity of profits are all that matters? and of course, movies make more money when they can just tuck a book in under the umbrella of "products" (to paraphrase a certain parody: "charlotte's web the lunch box, charlotte's web the toilet paper, charlotte's web the flame thrower, ... charlotte's web the book..."). and then, if you've already got the book written to begin with, you don't even need a new plot and writer, so you save on the screenwriting.
sorry to get carried away there; great thoughtful post!
Posted by: Jesse | January 29, 2007 at 04:18 PM