"Well, at least it gets kids reading."

[ϟEvelynϟ]

It could happen. I mean, I remember I really LOVED this one book in 5th grade and I wanted to read more of the series. So, I kept checking them out. I eventually moved on to other books, and I just began to love reading.

I personally really liked the Twilight book, but maybe others would think otherwise. If they liked it, it would be likely they'd continue the series, right? If they enjoy, you know, reading, then they can eventually become lifetime readers.

[Jeni]

I'm a huge proponent of anything that gets kids reading. Reading opens the mind and flexes the imagination muscles.

It causes people to question and explore and search for answers. Reading inspires creativity, joy, sadness, excitement, wonder, and empathy.

When a book inspires you, you want to read more, and more, and more. There's nothing that is closed to you any longer.

How is this ever a bad thing?

[Abby]

I do admit I read some pretty terrible books when I was younger, (Twilight included) but in all reality it was those books that got me started on reading far more intellectual books like Jane Austin. Everyone needs to start somewhere and who really cares if what you started with is sparkling vampires.

[Nuran]

If it helps kids read then I think it's a good thing, pretty sure we all didn't start off reading masterpieces. Plus, it's a good habit just to read for fun and not feeling the pressure you only have to read a book that teaches you something.

[Stéphanie]

Twilight actually was a gateway book for me. I have always been a reader, even when I was just a kid. But I really started reading more intensively after I read twilight. And now when I look back, I agree with most people that twilight is not a book with much content.
Like abby ^, I started reading more intelectual books like jane austen for example.

[Jeni]

Naiya wrote: "So this is reaching beyond harmless YA books, but it sounds like your argument suggests that no matter what the book is, be it Mein Kampf for Kids or Jules Verne, it'll automatically lead to a broadening of the mind and increased emotional intelligence, creativity, and everything else that we want to inspire in young people."

Good points! I have read so many different ideas in books over my life that my mind was opened to many perspectives and I feel richer for having these conflicts to ponder.

Yes, outside guidance is vital, and presumably, your parental units will provide that (or mentor, teacher, etc.). But as we age, we become responsible for our own thoughts, whether they are open- or closed-minded. (As an aside, I would argue that reading Mein Kampf is a good idea. It's my opinion that it's impossible to understand the Holocaust without understanding the man.)

As to your points:
1. My own idea is that yes, all books expand your knowledge of the world around you and you cease to stagnate. You begin to think on your own, develop ideas, grow intellectually, and question ideas you have. This is good and healthy.
2. The action of reading also inspires good things and development because reading is a conscious decision. You are choosing to take action to increase your knowledge and interests and therefore, you become more receptive to different ideas.
3. Liking one book leads to reading more books. Once that part of the brain is turned on, it's hard to turn off!

We all go through phases of interest. As a child, I wanted to know everything about the land of Oz and Laura Ingalls Wilder. As I grew older, my tastes changed, but the land of Oz still holds a magical place in my heart.

[Siobhan]

As long as it's age appropriate or the person reading is mature enough for the content, the book that captures them doesn't matter, just that the love of reading is still alive. That there's this much love for reading in an era where kids especially are treated as though they've been dumbed down is proof that the first book doesn't matter. I used to read books that were far lazier in writing styles and length, churned out to make a quick buck, but now quality matters. Even if I'm not a twilight fan, I appreciate that it reached out to people who were never captured by Harry, or Frodo, or Aslan, or whoever.

[Lostshadows]

I think it's a valid argument. While not every person will move on from a terrible book to a better one, or even a different one, it will introduce them to the concept that reading can be an enjoyable pastime.

IMNSHO, that's never a bad thing.

[Carina]

I think there can be a bit of snobbery when it comes to things like this (though not evidenced by anyone on this thread!!). I was on a thread about Les Mis and someone basically said that if someone saw either the musical or film first they were not as 'good' as those who read Les Mis first...

I personally think that if something gets someone to want to read more that's great. Yes there are some 'bad' books out there that might give the wrong impressions/ideas but as long as the person reading has common sense (which I think the majority of people do) then what is the harm.

[Mochaspresso]

I think anything that inspires someone to read has its merits. Guidance is important only in the sense that you do want to encourage kids to read a wide range of literature across many different genres. However, I am not that much of a stickler for insisting that kids should stick mainly to "quality literature" when reading outside of school. I'm of the mindset that when children are younger, it is more important for them to develop a love of reading. If Captain Underpants was the series that first grabbed that child, then so be it.

[Siobhan]

Naiya wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "I think anything that inspires someone to read has its merits. Guidance is important only in the sense that you do want to encourage kids to read a wide range of literature ..."

I got that reaction at high school. I passed exams to go there. They had fiction split into two sections at the school, for lower years (age 11-14) and higher years (age 15-18). My entire time there, the stuff I liked was in the lower years (it was more contemporary, the older stuff was stuff like Dickens, Brontes, the classics) and my friends would mock me for liking stuff below my ability. But for me it wasn't about what I was able to read, but what I enjoyed. And I enjoy the older range now, but I would still dip into the younger stuff if I was still there.

I think people should read to make them happy, so if they start with Twilight, or Dr Seuss, or Proust it doesn't matter. As long as they go on from there.

[Bill]

If a good book turns a person off to reading, do we blame the book?

Defending a shitty book because "it gets people to read" is like defending the Nazis because "they got the trains to run on time."

Realistically, if a person is reading, it's because they are temperamentally suited to read, not because some dain-bramaged ditzoid spoon-fed them sparkly neutered blood-suckers.

[Nuran]

Peace wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Naiya wrote: "Mocha Spresso wrote: "I think anything that inspires someone to read has its merits. Guidance is important only in the sense that you do want to encourage kids to re..."

If that's the case I would have never have read Stephen King books at 12 years old, which saved my reading habits because I was starting to get bored of the children books out at the time.

[Haidi]

Mocha Spresso wrote: "I think anything that inspires someone to read has its merits. Guidance is important only in the sense that you do want to encourage kids to read a wide range of literature across many different ..."

I agree with you entirely. It was only the other day a question was raised in my child's class room to the teacher, "do the kids have to read just their readers or can they read other books?"

The teachers response to this was: I don't care what they read, as long as they understand it's content. It' one thing to be able to sound out words, recognise words etc but children need to be able to understand the content of what they are reading. If the kids want to read a comic, a joke book, a newspaper article, a magazine or the back of a cereal box that is fine. They need to enjoy what it is they are reading and not be made to read something just because they have too.

So Yes, if Twilight happened to be a book that got someone reading and into other books, brilliant.

[Lostshadows]

Peace wrote: "humm just in my opion here. i think some younger kids shouldnt even read older kids book, & they should just stick with the books, that for their own age limits."

Imposing arbitrary limits based on their calender age will just stifle the more precocious readers and not encourage the average ones to challenge themselves.

Kids are actually pretty good at figuring out their own limits. Unless they have to read it, most kids will stop reading something they don't understand and move on to something else. (Or just skim past the bit they're having a problem with.)

[Vasco]

Lostshadows wrote: "Peace wrote: "humm just in my opion here. i think some younger kids shouldnt even read older kids book, & they should just stick with the books, that for their own age limits."

Imposing arbitrary ..."

I totally agree with you. I tried to read difficult stuff when I was younger and damned I wanted to read Lolita when I was 13. If I understood a thing? not really and I eventually became bored and read the HP series. I've been rereading the classics I read when I was younger and realizing that I understood nothing at all but it is all part of the process.

I'd rather have kids reading Twilight than nothing at all (and come on people it's not a masterpiece but it is entertaining). I wish kids would read books with strong female characters and feminist ideals but children read what they know until they start questioning what they are, later, and so it is kind of hypocritical to judge the youngsters for something that was teached to them.

[Shae]

For me, Twilight was my "gateway" book. Before reading it, I didn't care for books at all. I was in fourth or fifth grade when I picked up this series, and I found out what it was to fall in love with a book. After reading through all four books, I began searching for more to read, for something else to fall in love with. And now I'm a reader for life. And to be honest, when you're in fourth or fifth grade, you don't really pick up the negative messages that may be in-twinned into the book. All you can really see is the love Bella and Edward have for each other.

[Gerd]

Bill wrote: "Defending a shitty book because "it gets people to read" is like defending the Nazis because "they got the trains to run on time"..."

Do you intend to say that trains running on time could be a bad thing, actually? :)


The analogy isn't entirely sound, no book does evil things by intent.
The problem however is that reading in itself doesn't open the mind - just look at the Bible thumpers, I'm sure they read their Bible front to back, and probably more than once, but only use their reading skills to further narrow down their minds.

[Mochaspresso]

I think that people need to realize/remember that just because a book promotes or contains something negative doesn't necessarily mean that all readers will internalize that negativity or be negatively influenced by it. It is possible to read a book and disagree with the ideas and messages in it. Simply reading Mien Kampf is not going to influence every single reader of it to become a Nazi.

[Siobhan]

In some circles, Mien Kampf is still brilliant, regardless of the author. I haven't read it, but I'm interested by it, if only because it splits opinion more that Twilight ...

[[deleted user]]

Definitely a gateway book:) not a fan of Twilight, but i give it props for creating new, enthusiastic readers.

[Gerd]

Naiya wrote: "Why not? I mean, sure, "evil" is a social construct, but there are plenty of books promoting hate, violence, prejudice..."

Sure, if you read, for example, Will Henry you have to wonder if the guy is just dense or if he really does detest women that much, because what he shows in his books must be the most inept female characters in the history of writing.
Still, the books by them self are not, well, "evil" - they are just badly written with a huge bias by the writer.

Is there a potential in a book to corrupt people?
Hell, yes, just look at all the Bible thumpers.
Does that make the Bible a bad book? (Well, yeah, a badly written one to today's standards).



Naiya wrote: "I'm not sure how that's a counter-argument against an assertion of "if a dog bites someone, it may affect the bitten person in a negative way."

On the flips stands that a person that dislikes dogs will do so regardless if they get bitten or not (Not that anybody ever anywhere in the history of mankind got bitten by a book).

[Siobhan]

Gerd wrote: "Naiya wrote: "Why not? I mean, sure, "evil" is a social construct, but there are plenty of books promoting hate, violence, prejudice..."

Sure, if you read, for example, Will Henry you have to wond..."

People seem to forget that the bible was written by a collection of men. Not God, men. I'm not disputing whether or not there are good messages in there, but there is a lot of contradictions based on who wrote what. Mindlessly quoting the bible doesn't prove you're closer to god, just that you have great retention. I don't think the bible corrupts people, it is the people themselves who read what they want into words other men have written down.

Also, Harry Potter got bitten by a book, but that's a whole other story ;)

[Gerd]

Siobhan wrote: "I don't think the bible corrupts people, it is the people themselves who read what they want into words other men have written down."

That's true, and the number of people that did honest to God (hah!) good things in the world that felt inspired by the Bible certainly go to show so.


Naiya wrote: "You mean you haven't? They're out there, man."

I guess books must be like dogs, just never show them your fear (and hope that books are not like cats, because then you'll never know when they feel like biting and clawing). :D


No, as I see it, the idea of a person becoming adversly influenced by a book negelects the multitude of other influences we encounter in life - however, if these influences all run in the same direction, then there is a real danger given.

Does twilight, for example, hold the danger to raise acceptance for abusive behaviour?
Not on its own.
But we do regularly hear of cases where abusive behaviour is if not encouraged, then at least silently rewarded.
Books are not the problem, the society in which they are written and/or being read is.

[Nuran]

I might not like certain books, but I wouldn't be happy someone trying to control them. We might end up with boring, safe books that promote an equally bad lifestyle that the control was trying to stop in the first place.

[Siobhan]

Naiya wrote: "Gerd wrote: "Books are not the problem, the society in which they are written and/or being read is..."

But to play the devil's advocate a bit further, isn't that a bit like saying "guns aren't the..."

Isn't that why we go to school? Not only to learn to read, and write, but to think, to rationalise, to look beyond, to be analytical. The lessons of responsibility come first.

[Redd]

This topic title is funny.

Check out my webcomic. Updated every Thursday: http://reddkaiman.blogspot.com/2013/0...

[Jettcatt]

Twilight was a gate way book for my daughter, I finished reading it and on a whim literally handed her (12 years old openly stating that she hates reading) Twilight saying you might like this see how you go. Bamm she was hooked read it in four days. She is now 15, in year 10 and is intent on doing english lit in her higher levels of schooling. I saw marked improvement on her reading comprehension and writing skills, from then on. She is now reading shakesphere, Austin as well as comptempory books as well. Twilight has been the base for many mother and daughter discussions on relationships and what is acceptable behaviour from boys....3 years on she has now gone from ardently defending Edward as the love god to now recognising that his actions were selfish, controling and perhaps emotionally abusive. By extending her love for reading she is now able to step back critically reflect on relationships and I feel she is heading into the right direction when knowing what she deserves and expects from a relationship. So as a mum of a teenage girl I feel that reading is great, reading is better if the reader discusses and unpicks the messages running through out the book it opens the mind and challenges our thinking.

[Mochaspresso]

Nuran wrote: "I might not like certain books, but I wouldn't be happy someone trying to control them. We might end up with boring, safe books that promote an equally bad lifestyle that the control was trying to ..."

I wouldn't want that type of control over books either. I think the system that we have now is more than enough. Everyone has the freedom to express their praise for it or their discontent and everyone has the freedom to judge it for themselves and make up their own minds about it.

[Gerd]

Naiya wrote: "Barring incremental progress, you can't change something so vast and ambiguous a concept as "society" or "human nature", but you can definitely impose gun control (I know, I know, can of worms). And since we can't change or directly affect the overall societal context in which books are being read, wouldn't it make sense to try to change something we can control?

It's commonly accepted that books are powerful tools for good. But if books are ideas, and ideas are powerful, ought there not be something about "responsibility" (so quoth spiderman's uncle) somewhere in there?"

Not that I disagree, and further more not that there aren't books out there I would feel easier about if we could get rid of them - but who's to judge what ideas we ban and which we don't?
To try and control the spread of ideas we deem inappropriate, would be exactly what the Church did for centuries, what the Nazis did, what every regime everywhere does... there's no good to be gained from that I'm afraid.
I already disagree with the idea of parents censoring what their kids read, but governments censoring what we read, or worse we censoring what others read, that would truly be a slippery slope to go down.

Besides, weapons to books are not exactly a fair comparison to make, sure both can be dangerous, but books are seldom used to kill people - or when was the last time you heard of a Tolstoy being used in a hold-up?

[Bill]

I'm going to expand on my point, because apparently my brain works differently than most people's, and y'all seemed to miss the point.

The Nazis took a broken and bankrupt nation and turned them into an economic and military powerhouse... by killing millions of Jews (and other non-Aryans) and confiscating their property, invading sovereign nations, and just being f***ing bad.

Twilight gets people reading, but it's bad. The grammar is awful, the prose is more purple than Grimace, and Meyers does more damage to the view of a "healthy relationship" than Mark Wahlberg did in Fear.

Teaching kids to enjoy or improve themselves by doing or reading bad things is an absolutely awful lesson.

[Nuran]

Bill wrote: "I'm going to expand on my point, because apparently my brain works differently than most people's, and y'all seemed to miss the point.

The Nazis took a broken and bankrupt nation and turned them i..."

Stretching twilight to nazi, really can't take you seriously. I'm not the biggest fan of twilight but it isn't exactly evil material. Twilight readers may move on to other books that will teach them other morals. Jews killed by nazi can't move on, but readers of twilight can.

[[deleted user]]

There are plenty of better options when it comes to encouraging good reading habits. If nothing else, bribe/beat the little brat into submission. Brainwashing works too - I'd know, being Korean and all.

[Carina]

Bill wrote: "I'm going to expand on my point, because apparently my brain works differently than most people's, and y'all seemed to miss the point.

The Nazis took a broken and bankrupt nation and turned them into an economic and military powerhouse... by killing millions of Jews (and other non-Aryans) and confiscating their property, invading sovereign nations, and just being f***ing bad.

Twilight gets people reading, but it's bad. The grammar is awful, the prose is more purple than Grimace, and Meyers does more damage to the view of a "healthy relationship" than Mark Wahlberg did in Fear.

Teaching kids to enjoy or improve themselves by doing or reading bad things is an absolutely awful lesson. "

I also think it is a good idea for people to read 'well' written and 'badly' written books (I'm not going to go into the whole is Twilight a good book or a bad book thing again). How else will they recognise a book that is 'written well' if they haven't got a comparison point? If they only read books that are 'well written' (lets say the 'classics' aka Dickens, Bronte et al) then how will they be able to recognise it as 'good' writing?

Do I personally like Twilight - no, but I also don't mind reading books that I end up not liking as it helps me learn more about what I do like - for example I know I won't read The Host because I am not a fan of Meyers writing style, at the same time I am reading more Stephen King books because you know what his style has grown on me.

Yes there might be better books out there (at least in the opinion of those of us who dislike Twilight) but tbh who cares if it acts as a springboard?

[[deleted user]]

I agree, this is a bad, bad, baaaaaad defense of a book.

I think it's better for people to read quality literature rather than shit. I would prefer for kids to read nothing at all as opposed to something that, at an age when they are so dangerously impressionable, could present something that might lead their viewpoint in the wrong direction.

If one has to fall back on making excuses for a book's flaws, not pointing out their strengths, that in itself shows that the book isn't a very good one. It doesn't point out the intrinsic value of a book, it just states the obvious: "this book is popular!!"

Why not present something good AND interesting to young readers in the first place? There's quality YA lit out there--something that is both accessible for the young adult demographic, AND of real quality.

You do not have to read trash to be entertained. It's like saying a baby's first food should be chocolate and candy because "well, at least it tastes good and gets them eating."

A book does not have to be terrible to entice young readers, any more than a teacher has to be boring to instruct. If you want kids to read, present something that is both quality material and accessible. Trust me, it exists.

Last of all, appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. It doesn't constitute an adequate defense to say "at least it get kids reading." It doesn't say anything about the content of the book, only its mass reaction.

[Siobhan]

Carina wrote: "Bill wrote: "I'm going to expand on my point, because apparently my brain works differently than most people's, and y'all seemed to miss the point.

The Nazis took a broken and bankrupt nation and ..."

Exactly. It's like wine drinkers, they think everyone should appreciate the best wines but how the hell do you discover what the best ones are unless you've had good quality, bad quality, cheap, expensive, corked etc?

[Carina]

Siobhan wrote: "Carina wrote: "Bill wrote: "I'm going to expand on my point, because apparently my brain works differently than most people's, and y'all seemed to miss the point.

The Nazis took a broken and bankr..."

Great anaology!

I said in another thread, thanks to reading Twilight I can say I prefer the more 'Dracula' type vampire (though I won't say no to an Anne Rice vampire) as opposed to the modern versions that we are seeing now. Before Twilight I just said I liked vampires, now I am better able to discuss why and what kind.

[Siobhan]

Thank you!

Twilight (and a lot of YA fiction actually) has really helped with my own writing, in the sense that I don't want to make a lot of the same fallacies. So I'm writing a love story where the characters don't wax lyrical about each other's great attributes - they've got a buttload going on in their own lives, they also don't proclaim to love each other a week after meeting or however long these books leave it these days (like that meme of a typical modern relationship, first week 'I love you', second week 'you complete me', third week you're single) - it may not be so ohmigosh they're so in love but at least I'm trying to write something frickin' believable. Not that I think I'm better than anyone who's been published, but where I see plot holes and problems in others writing, I am using that as a springboard. Will it work? Who the eff knows.

[Alex]

If I had children I would absolutely want them to read Twilight.

But then, the "it gets kids reading" argument is broken in so many ways. Kids need to read whether it's something they enjoy or not and I can't envisage having a child and not giving my best shot at introducing them to a world of books, fiction and non-fiction at a very young age and that continuing. If they're not reading voluntarily as a teenager it'll probably be from burnout, not the other way around (I think I'd be a horrible, pushy parent, for my sins)

If all a kid has literarily-wise is Twilight and Twilight clones, then they don't have much. I find that incredibly sad and not an argument in Twilight's favour at all.

Like I say I would actively encourage my child to read Twilight and then I'd actively encourage him/her to talk to me about it. And I'd actively encourage my child to read other vampire literature and to talk to me about those too. And I'd want my child to discuss gender roles in Twilight and whether they find them bad and I'd want my child to discuss sexual abstinence in Twilight and to compare it to, say Anne Rice and to tell me the difference.

Twilight would be a fucking great book for discussing ideas with a kid. I'd totally do the same thing with Disney movies too...

Which doesn't mean that the child can't enjoy Twilight or Disney movies. But children and adults need to learn from these books, not just say "well, hey, oooh it's getting them reading" Oh, woo hoo. You could read any piece of shit text and get nothing from it. Give them the Daily Mail "Oh hey, at least they're reading a newspaper, taking an interest" .... on what level is it good that a child is voluntarily reading racist, misogynist, reactionary shite if that child - or adult - is not able to question the content s/he is reading?

[Alex]

And just to add to that, equally there seems to be this notion that if one goes on to read other books then that's a roaring success too. Oh, I read Austen and Bronte and Dickens and so on. Not to denigrate the pure pleasure that one can get from simply reading but for most people it still amounts to a pleasure principle without actually making much of an attempt to understand the literature that they're reading. I think that people read texts with a view to finding what they want from them, they don't read them with a view to understanding what Austen or Bronte or anyone else might actually be communicating.

I think that's a fairly sloppy way of reading and I don't really care if people take pleasure from reading this way or not. I mean, I do care because books are cool and shit and I relate to other readers better than I do football fans, but I probably have a stronger motivation that people grow up with ideologically sound beliefs, that they're not misogynist, or racist, or capitalist or homophobic or dareIsay swayed by religious propaganda and driven to hate people. Namely, the ability to question. I think that these things don't happen via the pure physical act of reading. The "I read Twilight and now I like reading more books so Twilight and reading are great go reading" syndrome. Like I say, I like that people enjoy reading on that level but I'll never stop pushing to try and encourage people to actually attempt to understand what they're reading on a more complex level. So far my conversations with Twi-Hards have led me to believe that they are a group of readers who understand literature and life in a very simplistic manner. It leads me to dislike the book dreadfully dontcha know darlings.

What I'm trying to say is, read Twilight. Read Austen and Bronte. But the important stage that keeps getting missed is actually thinking about those books. Or in a teenager's case it's being educated about those books or being taught the process of how to cross question a text and to ask what that text is actually communicating and how. Because you can't just "tell" a teenager what to believe, they have to learn how to learn, as it were. Someone needs to understand how to question the assumptions and expectations that society creates around them and just reading Twilight or anything else will not help with that.

[Alex]

And also society is becoming very dependent on YA fiction for some reason. Some of these books are nice, I'm sure, but not so long ago 12 year old kids were reading Walter Scott and Robert Louis Stevenson so I think they can probably manage more than The Hunger Games if we put our minds to actually encouraging y'know, actual books and literature rather than the marketing strategies behind those books. And let's be clear, YA is absolutely nothing more than a marketing strategy.

I'm not denigrating those books, book for book mind. I'm a heavy genre book reader and I love epic fantasy and Star Wars EU novels. So I'm not trying to say don't read and enjoy this stuff on any level you want to. I like to switch my brain off and enjoy a good bit of quality trash and I will always encourage anyone to read books of any style. But at the same time everyone is capable of reading and appreciating more complex and subtle literature too. The YA machine is thriving on the pretense that we aren't and that it's cool to hate classics or weighty tomes.

[Gerd]

Siobhan wrote: "Exactly. It's like wine drinkers, they think everyone should appreciate the best wines but how the hell do you discover what the best ones are unless you've had good quality, bad quality, cheap, expensive, corked etc?"

Not to forget, you can't mix good wine with coke, it tastes terrible - you need some fine bad wine for that. :)


Alex wrote: "And also society is becoming very dependent on YA fiction for some reason. Some of these books are nice, I'm sure, but not so long ago 12 year old kids were reading Walter Scott and Robert Louis S..."

Call me a modern reader then, 'cause I could never get into either - although, I still do kind of have "Ivanhoe" on my want to read list.

[Siobhan]

Gerd wrote: "Siobhan wrote: "Exactly. It's like wine drinkers, they think everyone should appreciate the best wines but how the hell do you discover what the best ones are unless you've had good quality, bad qu..."

You truly don't know good wine until you've had a Lambrini (although, Lambrini peach is bearable) - any wine after a bottle of the 'brini is going to be like Ambrosia (the Greek kind, obviously, I'm not now getting confused with custard).

[Alex]

Gerd wrote: "Call me a modern reader then, 'cause I could never get into either - although, I still do kind of have "Ivanhoe" on my want to read list. "

Well, rants aside, I do judge people on their affinity to Robert Louis Stevenson so clearly you've failed at life. :D

C'mon, Treasure Island, Dr Jekyll, Kidnapped ... what's not to love??

[Nuran]

Kids are far stronger than people give them credit for. Grew up in the generation where kids managed to sneak and watch freddy kreugar and Friday 13th, aliens and Halloween. Shock, horror there aren't millions of serial killers running about the place. What about the millions of girls who grew up on Disney, they're out there getting jobs, becoming doctors, buying their own place instead of staying at home waiting for a prince.

I've read far worst books as a kid than twilight, sweet valley high being one of them, popular choice of the time. I liked them at first but got bored of them and wanted to move on to bigger, better things. Sweet valley high; horrible, badly written, rich, flat characters with barely any plot that I didn't notice immediately but I don't regret reading them because they at the time helped me keep my reading habits. Grown up on Disney, sweet valley high, horror films but I guess my impressionable brain wasn't working or something, because I've develop a love and preference for kick ass, strong female characters and am not a serial killer.

Argument that kids are so impressionable is just ridiculous. We were all kids once, I'm sure we've all been exposed to crap we shouldn't have been reading or watching, especially the older generation and my generation. Kids these days are wrapped up in too much cotton wool, there are many who aren't becoming functioning adults. And not letting the read at all? That's worse than letting them read anything. Those kids won't be passing on any reading habits to their own kids, and thus adds to the decline of readers in the world.

[Alex]

So yeah when I was a teenager I watched Alien and I had this overwhelming desire to impregnate women by sucking on their faces and make horrible little things burst out of their stomach. ewwwwwwww

They're calling it caesarian now or something. I dunno, it's horrifying though. You shouldn't watch that shit so young. Kids should stick to Call of Duty, it's much safer.

[Mochaspresso]

I'd be interested in hearing from more people who have talked to kids about Twilight and what they actually took away from it? Are kids actually emulating the more negative traits and more importantly, are they doing so specifically because of Twilight? I honestly do not think this as much of a danger as people think it is. I think that is mainly paranoia and scapegoating. Some people would rather pay lip service to censoring the world than actually sitting down and talking to their kids about it.

On the other hand, I have talked to quite a few kids who went on to read some of the books that Bella reads. Books that in the normal course of things, they probably wouldn't have been introduced to until later on in HS and most probably wouldn't have "really" read even then. People are so worried that kids will emulate Bella, but they never consider that Bella was an avid reader of the literature that you are claiming that you want kids to gravitate toward.

I also think you can find good or bad in anything if you really have a desire to do so. To use Bill's Nazi example, if you are only learning about the genocide, you are not learning the whole story behind Hitler or Nazi Germany. I think it is also important to understand how and why he was able to rise to power in Germany. Having an understanding of why so many chose to follow Hitler is not necessarily going to suddenly turn you a supporter of genocide. I read excerpts from Mein Kampf in HS and didn't "turn". I wasn't even inspired to read any more of it beyond those excerpts.

I am neither for or against reading Twilight in school. I'm ambivalent on that issue but I think I could see how a HS teacher could draw kids who were fans of the series into a lesson about allusion by referencing one or more of the allusions in Twilight briefly and then moving on to whatever the assigned reading is. I think it could be useful to show kids that the things that you are trying to teach them exist in the books that they "like" to read too. Not just in the literary world of "quality", "classics" and/or "good literature".

People also need to remember that inspiration to read can come from anywhere and anything. My niece is 8. She wants to read Romeo and Juliet because she loved the movie Gnomeo and Juliet. I read the the Laura Ingalls Wilder "Little House..." books because of the TV show. Then I read "Little Women" because it was on a "Just For Girls" shelf in the school library next to the "Little House..." books. When I was about 11, I read Wordsworth because I'd seen a tv version of the movie "Splendor in the Grass" and absolutely loved it. That was the same year that I read Pygmalion because of a Broadway revival that I'd seen of "My Fair Lady". I read "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" because of rap lyrics and a Boogie Down Productions album cover. I read some of Thoreau's essays because of his influence on Martin Luther King. I am completely certain that the regency romance novels that I read in middle school and HS helped me keep the Kings and Queens of England and France straight in my history courses. The same holds true for all of those American Civil War era bodice ripper romances that I read. My cousin's son is reading "The Epic of Gilgamesh" because of a rap song by Baba Brinkman. I knew a lot of kids who read "The Miseducation of the Negro" by Carter G. Woodson because of the popularity of "The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill", another rap album.

I honestly do think that some of you need to stop focusing so much on the negative (...which, in some cases, is probably only in your minds more than it actually is in theirs). Trying too hard to control a child's likes and dislikes usually just leads to a child who finds more and more inventive ways to do what they want anyway without you knowing about it.

[Alex]

That's actually quite a brilliant post from Mocha. Thank you for that.

[Nuran]

Alex wrote: "So yeah when I was a teenager I watched Alien and I had this overwhelming desire to impregnate women by sucking on their faces and make horrible little things burst out of their stomach. ewwwwwwww..."

Tsk.....you mean you didn't get the desire to be the impregnated man and have a little life growing inside you???? For shame!!

[Nuran]

Mochaspresso wrote: "Trying too hard to control a child's likes and dislikes usually just leads to a child who finds more and more inventive ways to do what they want anyway without you knowing about it. ..."

That'd be hilarious, their own kids sneaking off to get a copy of twilight, hiding it like it's some kind of drug. I have this image of them wearing black gear and large hoodies, nervously sneaking a copy into their bag, being all secretive and sweating. You think the worst but all it is, is a YA book. Sneaking to read twilight, that's just made my day.