El's comments (member since Oct 25, 2009)

El's comments from the Constant Reader group.

Wow, that is fabulous. Thanks for sharing that, Ruth. I can't imagine the amount of time that must have taken to execute, but what a wonderful result.

I saw The Fourth Kind in the theater last week, mostly because of Milla Jovovich. I'm partial to scary movies, particularly the ones with any good twist or story. I'm not usually up for alien abduction films, but this one had a few moments that made me jump and/or think. At times a little too visually affected, but a fun watch nonetheless. Wouldn't own it - some aspects of it were more annoying than anything else.

Seeing it not too long after watching Paranormal Activity I can't help but compare the two since both movies are meant to frighten viewers. I'm much more intrigued by demons than aliens, and enjoyed Paranormal Activity as a whole a lot more.

So is it time for another decent horror movie trend? I'm withholding judgment until I see what else comes out.

I'm not familiar with Ron Rash. Thanks to this thread I'll be checking him out.

Erin wrote: "The use of "rather than" indicates that description and sense of place are of highest value, whereas event and plot have no value whatsoever."

And when I read his post again, I still don't see where he said event and plot have "no value whatsoever". "Highest value" does not necessarily equate "no value" in other areas. It means more to me that perhaps those other areas have lower value.

Perhaps it is word choice, but again it's interesting that some people read the same words one way and another read the same words another way. It's not to say one is right over the other. It's just interesting to me.


Anyhow, Joe, you might also check out William Trevor. I've read a couple things by him, and while they didn't really resonate with me I know a lot of people love his writing.

This is interesting because I found no offense in what Kenneth said, and actually agreed with it (as another person holding a writing degree). I didn't find him to be saying that literary fiction could only be about description and sense, but that a "high value" is placed on them. He also did not say that there was no event or plot in literary fiction. Maybe I didn't investigate the thought fully enough, but I also don't see much difference between what he wrote and the Wiki definition that was posted later, aside from they're phrased slightly differently.

Kenneth wrote: "As I understand it, literary fiction places a high value on description and sense of place rather than on event and plot."

Wiki definition: "In broad terms, literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character, whereas mainstream commercial fiction (the page-turner) focuses more on narrative and plot.

I know that wasn't the point of this discussion, but wanted to throw my opinion into the mix as well - not to further any debate but simply because I had an opinion. I think a lot of people know the difference, but may not know how to verbalize it. You could put Toni Morrison down in front of someone to read, and then Robert Ludlum and I think most people would be able to tell you which was which. Like an old-school Coke/Pepsi taste test. :)

I'm not exactly sure what you might constitute as a "literary writer", but I assume you mean as opposed to genre writers. Not sure how other people feel about these, but I classify Margaret Atwood, Michael Chabon, Stewart O'Nan and Toni Morrison as some contemporary "literary writers".

I work with a group of surgeons, so I deal with insurance companies daily. I now have Kafka-esque nightmares, not that I turn into a large cockroach but that I turn into an insurance company's Utilization Review physician.

Capitu, thank you for posting this. I wish I had seen it sooner.

Suzanne wrote: "Yes, El, that is exactly what has happened.
In Calif. now, I'm afraid the economical collapse has started an avalanche that is severly hampering the amount, and types of testing, Drs. will do.(In..."

Oh, don't get me started on insurance companies. It is nightmarish.

Wilhelmina, I'm glad you posted this. Thank you.

I had mono in high school and it never seemed to go away. After a series of tests the best they could tell me was that unfortunately mono will always show up in your system once you've had it, but there's no way of knowing if it's "active" or not. There are mutations of mono apparently. In any case, when discussing the possibility of CFS I've been shot down at just about every corner by every doctor I've seen. Last I heard no one would give it much consideration as an actual diagnosis. That always irked me.

Suzanne wrote: "How do your doctors differentiate your condition from that of chronic, severe, clinical depression?? They are almost identical in symptoms."

I won't speak for Mina, but in my own experience most of my doctors did want to just put me in the "depressed" category. They can check your serotonin levels (I think that's what it is) to see if there's a chemical imbalance that could be causing chronic depression, and I'm sure there are more specific question/answer sorts of things, but I opted out of that. I have found most people find it "easier" to classify CFS, chronic mono and even fibromyalgia as just "depression". Gr.

Michael wrote: "After a wave of public support for her, Palin relented and let Emmons keep her job. ...So (me again, here) it seems to me that the most one can take from that is a librarian had to stand up to some political pressure. Unfortunate, perhaps, but many grown-ups have to stand up to opposing points of view at times. That is what a head-of-anything job can require."

It seems to me that had the librarian not been so popular amongst the townspeople and had they not stood up in her defense, Palin might have gotten her way. That is the disturbing part. It wasn't until the town threw a fit that she backed down on her request for books to be pulled and for Emmons to be fired.

Hannah wrote: "If someone's kid dislikes their parents' decisions concerning books,or they take offense because someone told them they were too young for something,it doesn't mean that you let them have their own way."

Okay, again, not really agreeing 100% here. I'm not saying kids should always "get their own way", but again, most material can be discussed with children in a way that is acceptable. For example, I have a very vivid memory of being very small and being in a used bookstore with my mother. I found a copy of Little Black Sambo and wanted it so badly. My mother - understanding what the story is really about - bought it for me because she wanted to encourage my reading. And she and I read it together on numerous occasions, and each time it was an actual educational process. I learned at this very young age what makes Little Black Sambo inappropriate in a lot of ways, and as I grew older we discussed it in light of why it has been the target of censorship for many years. It's a racist story, but I did not grow up having racist beliefs because I read this book at a young age; on the contrary, it was discussed to me in such a manner that I understood and could appreciate, without even really understanding the social implications of racism.

My brothers and I also had a children's book about sex which was occasionally bedtime reading for all three of us. None of us grew up to be sexual deviants because of that experience.

Literature is a great source of education, whether at home or in the classroom. As Kenneth stated in one of his posts, children can actually grasp a lot more than most people give them credit for accepting. If all discussions about questionable literature could be as "open" as Michael seems to think they all are, that might actually be okay. But those discussions do not need to come into the world because someone actually argues the book should not be taught to children.

It is good to encourage discussion and even a healthy debate. It is not (IN MY OPINION) good to encourage such a strong and close-minded debate as, "This book should not be taught to my children and as a result, all of the other children in his/her class." That's a different level of discussion.

I guess if the argument is here along the lines of, "Why ISN'T it okay for parents to deny their children certain literature?" then the argument on the other side of the coin should also be, "Why can't you let your children read the said certain literature and then discuss it with them so they understand the implications that might be so potentially dangerous?"

Let me clarify my prior statement since it seems to be causing an issue here:

Call me old-school but I've generally considered withholding information to be a form of lying.

First of all, "I've generally considered" is the operative phrase here. It's basically the same thing as saying, "In my opinion" or "I feel" which, sorry, are not comments that can be argued because, hello, they're my feelings.

Secondly, hypothetically speaking: if I found out my boyfriend of five years has been sleeping with another woman for four of those years and decided to withhold that information from me, then yes, I would consider him to have lied to me for those years. Maybe that's just crazy-talk and I should consider the withholding of information nothing of consequence.

Yes, perhaps infidelity is a bit of a stretch here, but in my opinion withholding information is, well... withholding information. If that's confusing to some of you, that's fine. Again, it's my opinion based on my own experiences in how I was raised in my own family. We believe in honesty and openness whenever possible.


Hannah wrote: "Certain reading material can cause a child to "grow up too fast"."

I'm not sure I understand how a book can cause a child to "grow up too fast". I would love a little more explanation on that.

Hannah wrote: "I believe that there are books out there which are not appropriate for people of ANY age to read!"

I would also love to know which books are inappropriate for ANY age to read.


Michael wrote: "...why would anyone fear an open discussion of someone's concern over a book?"

The point I had made in post 145 ("...but my experience in witnessing challenges is that one group [usually the challengers:] is entirely closed to hearing the argument for certain literature, so the possibility of a good discussion is therefore not a positive aspect of the challenge.") is EXACTLY that in my experience I have not witnessed one "open discussion" except those in the actual classroom at which time the book was already being studied. Then it was a matter of discussing, "In what way does this qualify as literature?", and not in, "Do you think it should be taken out of the classroom?" When it comes to the PTA storming the classrooms and libraries to remove a book from the curriculum, I have never seen an "open discussion".

I agree that there are probably no poor translations of Neruda's works. Every book I have of his is a personal favorite. Isla Negra A Notebook / A Bilingual Edition is a great collection of poetry and covers a variety of subject matters (ie, politics, love, family, etc.) as well as different periods in his life which is interesting as far as seeing the progression of his writing.

Michael wrote: "Since you addressed me, I should point out the word I used, which I put in boldface in your quote from an earlier post of mine. What you write just above is what I was saying, too."

I guess then I'm confused by what you are trying to say, Michael, because it seems to me that you're saying challenging books is a good and positive thing especially when it comes to the argument of age appropriateness. My stance is the opposite of yours as I fail to see how a group of concerned parents and/or other individuals wanting to dictate what an entire school may or may not read is meant to be a positive thing. Yes, it may encourage discussion of a book or an author, but my experience in witnessing challenges is that one group (usually the challengers) is entirely closed to hearing the argument for certain literature, so the possibility of a good discussion is therefore not a positive aspect of the challenge.

Michael wrote: "Our society can't seem to wait to un-do childhood innocence, and I personally find that a very sad thing (and also quite difficult to contend against in our media-drenched world). We all grow up sooner or later; why the need to rush it, to turn kids into miniature adults even, in some contexts, at single-digit ages? Just to make them consume more? Ugh."

Main Entry: teach
Pronunciation: \ˈtēch\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): taught \ˈtȯt\; teach·ing
Etymology: Middle English techen to show, instruct, from Old English tǣcan; akin to Old English tācn sign — more at token
Date: before 12th century

transitive verb 1 a : to cause to know something <taught them a trade> b : to cause to know how <is teaching me to drive> c : to accustom to some action or attitude <teach students to think for themselves> d : to cause to know the disagreeable consequences of some action <I'll teach you to come home late>
2 : to guide the studies of
3 : to impart the knowledge of <teach algebra>
4 a : to instruct by precept, example, or experience b : to make known and accepted <experience teaches us our limitations>
5 : to conduct instruction regularly in <teach school>


Now, with that definition in mind I wonder at what point a teacher is supposed to not teach a student to become an adult? I remember even in my single-digit days teachers saying, "When you're an adult, this will be helpful to you..." or some other such phrase. In high school most parents and teachers encouraged students to take upper-level or preparatory classes in order to help them get into a better college. But before that there was junior high (or I guess most places call it "middle school" now), at which time all classes and forms of education were in line with helping a student succeed once they made it to high school. Before that was elementary or grade school, at which time all classes and forms of education were in line with helping a student succeed once they made it to junior high.

It's all a linear process, so I'm not sure I understand the concern of turning kids into miniature adults. Especially when looking at the definitions "teaching" as I cut n' pasted above. Or more specifically I'm not sure how certain reading material should cause a child to grow up faster than one should (which, I might add, is an entirely relative concept). I think it was Kenneth here who commented that it has more to do with the discussion that comes from reading "questionable" or "challenged" books than it does with the book itself.

My question, I suppose, is really: What is it we want to teach our children? Most children are confronted with more sexually explicit issues and offensive language on the school bus before they even walk in the doors of the school, and that is happening at earlier rates which, sadly, is reflected in part in which young people are having sexual intercourse and experimenting with drugs at a younger age. This has very little to do with the books they read in school or in libraries but more to do with the glorification of such things in other forms of media, such as TV and movies. Children are also able to see these TV shows, movies, Internet sites, etc. more frequently because parents are showing less interest in what their children consume, or take less time (or are unable to take the time) to investigate.

As Sherry mentioned, kids can be devious, and are more often intrigued by the things they are told they can not have. The best way to combat that sort of curiosity is not to try to remove the material from their grasp but to encourage them to question the material, and to help them understand why (for example) that even though Mark Twain uses the "n" word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn it is not appropriate to use.

I find the book challenges at school a concern not so much because I think it's a term synonymous with censorship (though I agree that it's not always far off), but because I feel it encourages intolerance amongst children. Allowing children to read books is not "forcing" anyone to grow up too quickly. Children are growing up at a much slower rate now than ever before, and in fact more slowly than other children of the same age in other countries. Reading books helps raise awareness, something that I don't feel should be hidden from any child, no matter what their age.

Call me old-school but I've generally considered withholding information to be a form of lying. Withholding certain literature from the school curriculum is, to me, the same as withholding the education process. This then leads to confusion in a child's mind - one moment everyone is cheering students on to be better and brighter, and then the next the same people are saying, "Oh, no, but you can't read that. You're not mature enough." That just allows children to sit back and let the world happen to them because, hey, they were told they're not mature enough to read a freaking book, so why should they be mature enough to do anything else? As a former student I was always rather peeved anytime anyone tried to tell me I wasn't "mature" enough to grasp the material in a book.

Encouraging children of any age to read is not encouraging them to "consume more", Michael; it encourages them to learn and gain knowledge. It amazes me most of all that this concept is frightening still to a large majority of parents and/or other "concerned citizens".

I read this in college for one of my English classes and wrote a paper on the sexual imagery throughout the poem. When I presented it to the class I remember someone asking, "Why can't the fruit just be... 'fruit'??"

(Hope it's okay to start up a thread that has been "dead" for a while.)

First of all, Ruth, I'll join the masses and express my awe at your art. It's actually very touching to look at those images.

Secondly, this thread makes me think of a Joyce Carol Oates' passage my friend e-mailed me just this weekend:

One must be pitiless about this matter of 'mood.' In a sense, the writing will create the mood... generally I've found this to be true: I have forced myself to begin writing when I've been utterly exhausted, when I've felt my soul as thin as a playing card, when nothing has seemed worth enduring for another five minutes... and somehow the activity of writing changes everything.

I think that just about hits the nail on the head. Personally I find viewing art or photography can help inspire me, and each year when my boyfriend and I take a trip in the fall I find myself inspired to the point of bursting. Unfortunately the UGH of "real life" sucks it back out of me the minute we get home. And that's then when I need to just sit down and do it.

Newengland wrote: "On-line personas talking to each other make a costume party of a sort. The monitor is our collective mask. "

Looking at it that way sort of creeps me out though. I suddenly hear my grandmother's voice warning me of stalkers at every Internet corner. :)