The Most Overrated Books Showing 1,051-1,100 of 5,680

[Michael]

Rachel: I don't think it's your age to which people are responding negatively, it's your arrogance.

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin wrote: "Rachel wrote: This thread hasn't yet proved otherwise.

Well, thanks a lot. I'm glad we got that sorted out - not a single comment on this thread, except yours, have been worthy of the label "inte..."

Quite right. It's been like talking to the wind, but with worse company.

[[deleted user]]

Michael wrote: "Rachel: I don't think it's your age that people are responding negatively to, it's your arrogance."

I guess you could call me arrogant. But I have bad qualities too.

[Paul Martin]

Rachel wrote: Quite right. It's been like talking to the wind, but with worse company.

Good luck with your academic career. With that kind of disgusting arrogance, self-love and petulant attitude, you'll need it.

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin wrote: "Rachel wrote: Quite right. It's been like talking to the wind, but with worse company.

Good luck with your academic career. With that kind of disgusting arrogance, self-love and petulant attitude..."

If you were me, you'd be arrogant too.

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin wrote: "Rachel wrote: Quite right. It's been like talking to the wind, but with worse company.

Good luck with your academic career. With that kind of disgusting arrogance, self-love and petulant attitude..."

"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
Isaac Asimov

This guy did alright. I'm not worried.

[Petergiaquinta]

Rachel wrote: "I find it interesting how you people can dismiss a person's views because of their age (I'm 19) and be perfectly fine with that, but if I was to dismiss your views because you were black, or Jewish, you'd have a problem with me. "

Now there's a fallacy of logic if I ever saw one...of course your age and your experience with literature has everything to do with what we are discussing on this thread.

Your gender, race, or religion, on the other hand, are important characteristics of the person you are, and they might influence your values and that "worldview" we keep hearing about, but they would have nothing to do with your education or your understanding of what makes "quality" literature. I ("we"?) aren't faulting you or anyone else for race, religion, gender or ethnicity. I'm saying you don't know enough to say the things you're saying, and it would be refreshing if you'd just give up. You haven't even finished your undergrad degree. There's a lot to learn out there if you'll let yourself.

I get the feeling that back when you were little, your mom put your art projects on the refrigerator and told you that you were a little Picasso. You went to the local art museum, and your mom told you that you were just as good. And somehow that's stuck with you, and your sense of aesthetics, literary or otherwise, is based on the same set of your mother's criteria: if I like it then it must be good. But you weren't a little Picasso. Your mom was just being a mom. And Collins has nothing to offer the discriminating reader along the same lines as Orwell or Huxley. To pout and kick your heels and insist you like it doesn't make it good. It's humorous to keep reading your posts. You're 19. That's a great age to be. Read and study and figure out what's out there. But enough with the silliness.

[[deleted user]]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Rachel wrote: "I find it interesting how you people can dismiss a person's views because of their age (I'm 19) and be perfectly fine with that, but if I was to dismiss your views because you were b..."

I may be 19, but I have read more literary fiction than most people do in their entire lives. So how does this make any sense? Are you suggesting LitFic is a genre for the over-60s?

It is amusing to read your posts too. You make yourself look like a fool, which is always entertaining to outsiders.

[[deleted user]]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Rachel wrote: "I find it interesting how you people can dismiss a person's views because of their age (I'm 19) and be perfectly fine with that, but if I was to dismiss your views because you were b..."

And you still haven't given us any reason to think 1984 and Brave New World are a more 'literary' form of sci-fi than The Hunger Games.

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin wrote: "If you become a renowned scientist and sci-fi writer you'll have earned the right to act like it.

Until then, it would be more classy to be yourself. But if acting like a 19 year old c*nt with hubris provides you with a feeling of grandeur, who am I to deny you."

You guys seem quite happy to talk bullshit and not respond to people's opinions in a rational way. So I gave up being Ms. Respectful for a while and decided to throw some mud too. I can see why you guys enjoy it, but it's not really for me.

Being right doesn't make one 'arrogant'.

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin wrote: "Rachel wrote: This thread hasn't yet proved otherwise.

Well, thanks a lot. I'm glad we got that sorted out - not a single comment on this thread, except yours, have been worthy of the label "inte..."



This doesn't count as an intelligent discussion, but it's a fair representation of this one (sadly it isn't even a Straw Man representation)...


Rachel: I don't think 'literary' fiction is inherently better than genre fiction. My reasons for this include the subjectivity of values.

Person 2: Don't be stupid! OF COURSE literary fiction is better! If you can't see that you're an idiot!

Rachel: Why is it better?

Person 2: Because it is! Everybody else here agrees! If you don't understand why it's probably because you're too young to understand.

Rachel: Erm, okay. Whatever. (thinking: what an idiot)

***

This isn't how an intelligent discussion works.

[Petergiaquinta]

Rachel wrote: "And you still haven't given us any reason to think 1984 and Brave New World are a more 'literary' form of sci-fi than The Hunger Games. "

I'll give you two things, the barest tip of the iceberg here...and see if you can come up with anything even close to what I am talking about.

From BNW go back and re-read the conversation between Mustapha Mond and John the Savage. Look at how in this conversation Huxley explores the question of what it means to be happy and what it means to be human. And as you are re-reading and thinking about the complexity of these ideas (and how they play out throughout the entirety of the novel), ask yourself if there is a similar moment of profundity and thought in anything that Collins has written in the Hunger Games trilogy. Why do we need Shakespeare in the modern world? Why not be satisfied with crap like Divergent and the Hunger Games? That's exactly what Huxley is asking his readers to think about in that conversation. Does Collins raise any issues as significant in her novels and with such thoroughness and clarity? Can you point to a similar moment where her reader is challenged to think like this?

From Orwell, I'd ask you to consider how he explores the devaluation of language and how that impacts not only our ability to think but also decreases what it means to be human. Look carefully at the conversation between Winston and Syme in the cafeteria and read the appendix in the back of the book (which is actually part of the novel), and then think about how right now not only the media, but YA fiction and what you call genre fiction, are doing the very thing that Orwell is warning us about in 1984. As the plot gets simpler, as the characters get flatter, as the language gets easier, the mind of the reader gets dumber and he loses the capacity for thought. Eventually maybe he even thinks that a writer like Collins is the equivalent to a Huxley or an Orwell. And when that capacity for thought on the part of the reader gets lost, then anything else is possible, as Orwell's novel shows us. Again, can you show me anything in Collins' books that comes anywhere close to what Orwell is saying about language in this powerful novel?

[Paul Martin]

Good thing I've never said any of that, then.

[[deleted user]]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Rachel wrote: "And you still haven't given us any reason to think 1984 and Brave New World are a more 'literary' form of sci-fi than The Hunger Games. "

I'll give you two things, the barest tip of..."

I didn't find that conversation to be particularly profound. It's basically Aldous Huxley vomiting his personal gunk over his novel while he should be revealing theme through the story. When the author has to slow the story down to insert a Big Message #3 into the text like this it's a sign of failure, not profundity.

And what does it mean anyway? The idea that it was better to live in the camp than in the outer world of BNW is very strange to me - it was a horrible place. The best place to be in the world of BNW is actually on the islands where the misfits go. That whole "theme" of the novel failed on many levels.

***

I disagree that fiction is getting 'easier' - rather, the modern reader prefers to not waste their time on reading fluffy language but to have authors be more precise and concise in their writing - use three words instead of twenty if it doesn't change the meaning. The writing should be as invisible as possible, unless you're Charles Dickens or Mark Twain.

Also, modern plots are generally much more complicated than the plots of the classics, especially in genre fiction. The modern reader requires something new and interesting in the things they read, and so there are lots of twists and turns and surprises nowadays. The structure of the novel has grown progressively more complex since the days of Don Quixote.

Flatter characters? Read Atonement or The Crimson Petal and the White. Modern fiction is just as well-characterised as classic fiction.

The idea of the mass reader steadily getting dumber until they lose the capacity for thought is another example of George Orwell's strange nonsensical views. All the evidence available today says more people are literate than ever before.

***

Suzanne Colins is a better writer, so she doesn't need to insert many large Big Message #3's into her work. And yet her books are as effective at giving a "message" as either of the other two. Her themes are SHOWN not told.

[Anne Hawn]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "what you call genre fiction, are doing the very thing that Orwell is warning us about in 1984. As the plot gets simpler, as the characters get flatter, as the language gets easier, the mind of the reader gets dumber and he loses the capacity for thought. Eventually maybe he even thinks that a writer like Collins is the equivalent to a Huxley or an Orwell. And when that capacity for thought on the part of the reader gets lost, then anything else is possible, as Orwell's novel shows us. Again, can you show me anything in Collins' books that comes anywhere close to what Orwell is saying about language in this powerful novel? "

That is exactly the point I was making when I wrote about the dumbing down of the SAT. Linguist of Orwell's time might have been talking about the correlation between thinking and vocabulary, but Orwell developed it into a riveting novel which ordinary people could relate to, and hopefully learn from.

My 10th grade English teacher told us that there was a precise word for everything we wanted to say and it was up to an educated person to know it. To this day I am grateful for what he taught us. The idea that words should be taken out of the SAT because students don't know them is shades of 1984.

You have stated brilliantly the difference between Orwell, Huxley and Collins, and I really thank you. I have been reading all these comments and trying to think if there was any way we could help Rachel that hasn't already been said. As a former teacher, I have been so discouraged because I am afraid she is just the tip of the iceberg. Nothing we say can matter. Person after person has tried to give rational and well considered points and it has all been for naught. I feel like the person who offers the sumptuous feast and the student wants a melted Popsicle.

[Petergiaquinta]

"Rachel wrote: "Suzanne Colins is a better writer, so she doesn't need to insert many large Big Message #3's into her work. And yet her books are as effective at giving a "message" as either of the other two."

Okay, so you just offered me nothing in response from Collins that comes anywhere close to the content or ideas or style of Orwell or Huxley. And you didn't even take the time to think about what I gave you from these two books. (By the way, neither Huxley nor John is telling us to live in the Reservation.) I thought we were going to have what Holden is looking for through the pages of Catcher, an "intellectual conversation." But all you offer me is "Suzanne Colins [sic] is a better writer." I lolz at that and I lolz at you.

And I haven't faulted all modern fiction; find where I said that. Have you looked at what I read? I read all kinds of stuff, good and bad, old and new, YA and "classic." Hell, I'm reading "The Immortal Ironfist" graphic novel right now. There's plenty of great "modern fiction" out there, and I've never said there wasn't. Hey, I'm glad you like Atonement, but clearly you can't discuss these ideas with any precision or specificity on your part. That goes back to your age, your maturity, your level of experience and education. And I don't fault you for all that because as we established, you're 19, but you need to understand your limitations and be open to the world of ideas out there that you have yet to explore very thoroughly.

I thought we were done with this line of discussion awhile ago, but I was curious to see what you could offer me or the thread from Collins besides you like it or it's a good story. But that's all you can give me. I'm still curious, but at this point I think I'm done. Anything more here is just retread on my part, so good luck!

[[deleted user]]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Okay, so you just offered me nothing in response from Collins that comes anywhere close to the content or ideas or style of Orwell or Huxley. And you didn't even take the time to think about what I..."

I thought about BNW while I read it.

If the insertion of Big Message #3's is what makes a good novel 'literature' then fair enough. I'm happy to say The Hunger Games isn't literature based on that definition. But Atonement probably wouldn't be either.

What is it about the over-emphasis of theme over content that makes literary novels superior to genre novels? (That's what I've been trying to work out all along. It was the whole point of me joining this thread.) One kind (literary) is more interested in theme, symbolism and style. The other (genre/mainstream) is more interested in plot, characters, and entertainment. Why is one better than the other?

[Monty J]

Rachel wrote: "One kind (literary) is more interested in theme, symbolism and style. The other (genre/mainstream) is more interested in plot, characters, and entertainment. Why is one better than the other?"

Why must one be better? And who's place is it to judge? Each has its own purpose. One is escape from reality while the other is to be confronted with it.

The vast majority of readers don't want to be confronted with reality, which is why genre novels are more popular. They don't want their mind expanded.

I may have seen five action flicks since James Bond in the '60s. My mind outgrew them. I went to see Captain America last week just out curiosity. The theater was packed. I almost walked out. Give me a Philomena any day over some computer-generated simulation of humanity in peril.

But the two films can't be compared. They serve different purposes. One appeals to me. The other I have little appetite for. People will watch/read what they want to watch/read.

With literature I get insights into the way the world works. With To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee single-handedly shamed white America into facing racism. Her first and only novel. She helped to change America.

John Steinbeck did something similar with The Grapes of Wrath.

New York's juvenile justice system got an overhaul after Lorenzo Carcaterra's Sleepers exposed systematic abuse in one of their detention centers.

Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest drew attention to the plight of mental patients in state mental wards, and a wave of reforms swept the country.

The Sun Also Rises and The Great Gatsby held up the mirror to a corrupt post WWI American culture awash with corruption and fractured values.

I've already mentioned Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front. Tim Obrien's The Things They Carried gives us a realistic look at the Viet Nam War.

These books aren't designed to entertain; they make us stop and think about the way the world has been working. And they do it in a way that makes us feel something: anger, revulsion, fear, sadness, joy, outrage, wonder. Sometimes they even suggest a solution. But usually they make us face the reality that genre entertainment allows us to escape.

We need both. The stressed corporate exec needs something to come home and decompress with, not something that makes her/im think.

(Happy Easter everyone.)

[Geoffrey]

Rachel wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "Rachel wrote: "I find it interesting how you people can dismiss a person's views because of their age (I'm 19) and be perfectly fine with that, but if I was to dismiss your v..."

Sorry girl but you`re discussing this matter with readers all of whom have read much more than you. So by saying you have read more than most....yes, in the world...but that`s not saying much because the majority of the people in the world are illiterate. So pat yourself on your back, you`re in the top 50%.

[Daniel]

I don't know if this has somehow come across in my participations here, but I'm 20, and that doesn't stop me from cringing when someone suggests readers somehow can't take "big messages" from books, or that their insertion means failure. It might be so if you're just looking for a Point A-to-Point B story, but if you're reading something political, something moral, something allegorical, then the "big message" is pivotal. Also, I agree that Atonement is a great book which doesn't need to state big messages bluntly, but if you flat out don't see them in the novel then you haven't read very well. It is a huge reflection on the importance of memory and literature, and in many ways an apology for those subjective points of view you so underestimate. I shan't say more lest I spoil it for somebody. But that happens because McEwan is perhaps one of the more subtle writers alive, along with Ishiguro. Collins, on the other hand, is not subtle. She just has nothing to say besides her story.

[S.W.]

So what you're sayin' is that the time honored classics are supposed to inspire young minds (like Rachel's) to change the world for the better? And that contemporary pulp fiction (i.e. Harry Potter, Hunger Games) does not inspire young minds to change the world for the better? Are you implying that there is a direct inverse correlation between the entertainment value/commercial success of a book and it's value to society/literary merit?

Monty J, I respect the hell out of you but come on! I am a surgeon and you don't know the first thing about how I decompress. I am offended that you assume I wouldn't want to read something that might make me think.

I think this friggin' thread has become "overrated." I'm appalled by the condescension and disrespect aimed at a thoughtful young mind struggling with the same literary questions that we all ponder. And if you want to read a book that doesn't entertain, read the phonebook.

[Monty J]

S.W. wrote: "So what you're sayin' is that the time honored classics are supposed to inspire young minds (like Rachel's) to change the world for the better? And that contemporary pulp fiction (i.e. Harry Potte..."

Maybe you missed the part where I said: "People will watch/read what they want to watch/read."

She asked why one was better than the other. I answered her question the best way I knew how. Jeepers, chill, Doc.

I don't know anything about Harry Potter except that I opened one of the titles and couldn't get past page one. (Same with John Grisham and Dean Koontz(sp?)and Danielle Steel.) Hunger Games I got to page 10. They just weren't my cup of tea. To each his/er own.

When I was much younger I read a few Zane Grey and Louis L'Amour westerns. People's tastes change.

[Daniel]

Rachel wrote: "That's where I differ from Literature students and professors - in my view, the most important things to look at when reviewing a story are the actual content of that story (characters, plot, structure, setting, viewpoint, description, etc...). "

Also, there's no way you said that. Do you actually know what goes on in a literature major? Yes, we have some cultural studies classes, but most of what we do in the major is look at the text unemotionally and see what's in it. That's how we know that Hunger Games's narrator is a narrow, restrictive burden for any kind of serious dystopian creation. That's how we know that the first 100 pages of the second book are an impudent rehash of the first one, in which Collins demonstrates her contempt for her readers' intelligence by reminding them exactly what each character did in the previous installment. That's how we know that Collins' language throughout the whole thing is pedestrian at best. It's all in the text. It's not that we don't like it (in fact some of my classmates enjoy it), but it just doesn't measure up. Just because it's classified as sci-fi or because the writer put some naive politics in her plot doesn't mean it has the same meat on the bone as Brave New World or 1984.

[S.W.]

People will eat what they want to eat. Different people like different foods. Caviar is not inherently better than grits. I'll read anything with an open mind and learn as much as I can from it. I think we offend the younger generation when we offhandedly dismiss the books they love. I think we are foolish to claim that the only good books are the ones that have stood the test of time (Rachel reminded me of that point).

Sorry Monty J, some of the other posters got me all fired up. Did you read them? It's funny that Harry Potter didn't appeal to you. It was recommended to me by a 60 year old urologist who loved it so much that he allowed himself to read only 30 pages a day. He wanted to savor the experience of living in Rowling's world. Maybe you were right about the escapism of surgeons?

[[deleted user]]

Monty J wrote: "Why must one be better? And who's place is it to judge? Each has its own purpose."

This is basically what I've been saying all along. So it was a very good start to your post. But then it deviates into LitFic snobbery against genre fiction:

"The vast majority of readers don't want to be confronted with reality, which is why genre novels are more popular. They don't want their mind expanded."

[[deleted user]]

Geoffrey wrote: "Sorry girl but you`re discussing this matter with readers all of whom have read much more than you. So by saying you have read more than most....yes, in the world...but that`s not saying much because the majority of the people in the world are illiterate. So pat yourself on your back, you`re in the top 50%."

How do you know how many books I've read? Are you stalking me?

[[deleted user]]

Daniel wrote: "I don't know if this has somehow come across in my participations here, but I'm 20, and that doesn't stop me from cringing when someone suggests readers somehow can't take "big messages" from books..."

I completely agree about Atonement. That is a novel that really does do a great job with handling its themes - I loved it. Much better novel than 1984 or Brave New World at this kind of thing, as McEwan doesn't treat his readers as inferior intellectually (whereas Orwell and Huxley have a "I'm warning you about this..." kind of vibe - they assume they have important knowledge about the world/future/people the reader doesn't).

[S.W.]

She nailed yah, MontyJ! Check, please?

Don't you have enough intellectual curiosity to actually read the new books that are influencing the younger generations and shaping our culture? Rachel slogged through Ulysses but you can't open your mind wide enough but for a few pages of Harry Potter or The Hunger Games? I read the Twilight Series for God's sake, just to see what the fuss was about. That was not my cup of tea, but it definitely expanded my horizons and helped me understand what type of book appeals to a tweener demographic. It was not as literary as Kostovo's The Historian or Stoker's Dracula. It's disingenuous to cast judgement on that which you have not read.

[[deleted user]]

Daniel wrote: "I don't know if this has somehow come across in my participations here, but I'm 20, and that doesn't stop me from cringing when someone suggests readers somehow can't take "big messages" from books..."

I think you may have misunderstood me. I didn't mean that "big messages" are a bad thing - that would be stupid, wouldn't it. Every story means something. I was saying that having page long infodumps or long conversations about the theme (where the author is basically just writing an essay about their own beliefs) like in 1984 is a VERY poor way of doing this. If the author is going to just "spell his theme out" anyway, why add the story at all? It would be irrelevant.

[Daniel]

I don't think it's about generations, S.W., not as much as it is about mindsets and expectations. People who read those books (I'm leaving out Rowling, whose writing I personally find competent) often want them to do everything for them except placing themselves in front of their face. Rachel here mentioned in one of her posts that "the writing should be as invisible as possible", which perfectly testifies to that expectation. Everything should be clear to them, monologic; they just want a story, no detours, no big words, no digressions, no "Big Message #3"s. Nothing but plot.

And once again, I'm 20. If there is one thing I must side with Rachel on, is that age should not be that important when assessing the aptitude of a reader (sadly, I don't think she's such a good example of that). However, books should not be given a free pass just because "hey, look, teens are reading" either.

[[deleted user]]

Daniel wrote: "Rachel wrote: "That's where I differ from Literature students and professors - in my view, the most important things to look at when reviewing a story are the actual content of that story (characte..."

Katniss is a much more interesting protagonist than Winston Smith. He's just the typical sci-fi "everyman" stereotype. There's almost nothing to him.

Have you read book series often? Pretty much ALL writers of series add information about what happened in the previous book (just in case the reader hasn't read book one, I assume). It's usually something that annoys me, but in The Hunger Games she does it so well I hardly noticed it.

Come on - George Orwell was hardly a writer of poetry. He had a similar style to Collins in fact - concise, to-the-point, no-nonsense. He wasn't Charles Dickens.

[Daniel]

Rachel wrote: "I was saying that having page long infodumps or long conversations about the theme (where the author is basically just writing an essay about their own beliefs) like in 1984 is a VERY poor way of doing this. If the author is going to just "spell his theme out" anyway, why add the story at all? It would be irrelevant. "

No, it wouldn't, because it serves as an ideological crystalization of the story. This is not a flaw in the execution of Orwell or Huxley (or Dostoevsky or Kafka for that matter); it forms part of the generic conventions for a literary allegorical story —something no tween saga is, no matter how much naive politics are thrown into the plot. The funny thing is, it's you who says that Collins is "better" than these classic authors and then claim that no one can say one book's better than another. The truth is that comparing tween sagas and literary allegories is not to the point not only because of the quality/ingeniousness/depth of the writing, but because thay are different genres altogether. So stop trying to force us to acknowledge merits in Hunger Games when they're 1)not there according to many a reasoned analysis of the book 2) not applicable within the genre you're comparing the book with.

[Daniel]

Rachel wrote: "Have you read book series often? Pretty much ALL writers of series add information about what happened in the previous book (just in case the reader hasn't read book one, I assume)."

No, I don't read them often, but I have read enough. His Dark Materials refreshes the reader's mind in 20 pages. Justin Cronin's The Twelve does it in 10, and with a very ingenious metatextual device. There's no excuse for rehashing the whole plot like Collins did.

[[deleted user]]

Monty J wrote: "I don't know anything about Harry Potter except that I opened one of the titles and couldn't get past page one. (Same with John Grisham and Dean Koontz(sp?)and Danielle Steel.) Hunger Games I got to page 10. "

WOW! Just wow!

And yet you feel qualified to comment? And people call me arrogant haha!

[[deleted user]]

Daniel wrote: "Just because it's classified as sci-fi or because the writer put some naive politics in her plot doesn't mean it has the same meat on the bone as Brave New World or 1984."

To the contrary. Having some "naive" politics in her plot would put Hunger Games EXACTLY in the same league as 1984 and Brave New World.

No intellectual takes these seriously - they're FICTION, entertainment, a story. Just because Orwell and Huxley say that these things could actually happen doesn't mean they could - the makers of zombie-horror movies say similar things. It sells books, and they knew it.

[[deleted user]]

Daniel wrote: "The funny thing is, it's you who says that Collins is "better" than these classic authors and then claim that no one can say one book's better than another"

Where have I said that? I only said I preferred Hunger Games, not that it was better.

[Monty J]

Rachel wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Why must one be better? And who's place is it to judge? Each has its own purpose."

This is basically what I've been saying all along. So it was a very good start to your post. But ..."

You may see it as snobbery, but take a step back from your prejudice and think a moment. It's reality.

The vast majority of people want to escape from the problems of life. If this were not true, sitcoms and soap operas would not be wildly popular decade after decade. Sports stadiums would not be overflowing. Action, comedy and fantasy films would not be nearly as prevalent while films about serious subjects get relegated to second-tier art flick venues.

Even film adaptations of serious literature get massaged by Hollywood to soften the assault on an audience's sensibilities. Take Senise's version of Of Mice and Men for example. Curley's wife is hardly recognizable compared with the book. The scene in Crooks' room where she threatens him with lynching and repeatedly calls him, "N---r" and mocks the men for having their dream of a place of their own--this scene was severely cut in all three film versions of OMM. Film adaptations like Precious and The Antwone Fisher Story win awards still flunk at the box office and nobody's even heard of the books.

I tried to watch a Harry Potter DVD, but had to switch it off after about 15 minutes. Boys flying around on brooms? Magic wands? It may make a good story, but the problems of life are hardly amenable to such nonsense. What is that teaching our children?

It's no wonder Salinger refused to allow CiTR to be made into a movie.

[[deleted user]]

Daniel wrote: "Rachel here mentioned in one of her posts that "the writing should be as invisible as possible", which perfectly testifies to that expectation. Everything should be clear to them, monologic; they just want a story, no detours, no big words, no digressions, no "Big Message #3"s. Nothing but plot."

I've already mentioned that 'A Tale of Two Cities' by Charles Dickens is my favourite novel, and it does all of those things - and STILL has an entertaining plot. So this post is bullshit frankly.

[Daniel]

Rachel wrote: "No intellectual takes these seriously - they're FICTION, entertainment, a story. Just because Orwell and Huxley say that these things could actually happen doesn't mean they could - the makers of zombie-horror movies say similar things. It sells books, and they knew it. "

That is seriously one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on this site, and this site is an endless pool of ignorance. So, bravo, I guess. In five lines you've dismissed the work of Raymond Williams, Frank Kermode, Christopher Hitchens, Bernard Crick, and thousands of great intellectuals who you've obviously never heard of. Also, the complete and incredibly vast work Orwell and Huxley did as non-fiction writers and researchers. Gorgeous.

You don't seem to get that Fiction does not equate Entertainment, and quite frankly I don't think you will for a very, very long time. You are just too narrow.

[[deleted user]]

Daniel wrote: "You are just too narrow"

Yes, it's because I don't eat much.

If those are your idea of intellectuals then so be it.

[Monty J]

S.W. wrote: "Don't you have enough intellectual curiosity to actually read the new books that are influencing the younger generations and shaping our culture?"

In a word, no, not until I've read what I value highly, what has been proven by the test of time. It's enough for now to read reviews and synopses of what is popular. I'm committed to plowing through Eat Pray Love though.

But Fifty Shades of Grey? Get serious.

[[deleted user]]

Monty J wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Why must one be better? And who's place is it to judge? Each has its own purpose."

This is basically what I've been saying all along. So it was a very good start to ..."

I don't read to escape life. If I wanted to escape life, I'd chop my head off. I read because I enjoy it.

[Daniel]

Yes, those are my idea of intellectuals: people who work with ideas, examine them in detail, and put them into coherent discourse. As opposed to you, whose idea of intellectual seems to be a Platonic, non-existent notion of Science, or otherwise the mega-inflated version you have of yourself.

You know what? Think what you please. Some of the older people in this thread seem to have the patience of saints and a gusto for being didactic towards you, and I praise them for it. But I'm your age, remember? I don't need to be patient and I don't need to take your philistine bullshit. I have better things to do, like write a kick-ass analytical essay on a couple of novels you'd never in a million years fathom the depth of. Cheers.

[[deleted user]]

Monty J wrote: "S.W. wrote: "Don't you have enough intellectual curiosity to actually read the new books that are influencing the younger generations and shaping our culture?"

In a word, no, not until I've read w..."

The old "test of time" argument. Jesus, I'm finished with this thread. I'm off to buy some chocolate.

[[deleted user]]

Daniel wrote: "Think what you please. Some of the older people in this thread seem to have the patience of saints and a gusto for being didactic towards you"

Lord, give me demons.

Thank you for the permission to think for myself. I needed that. I give the same gift to you.

[[deleted user]]

Before I go, I will say one thing:

I may very well be wrong, and you may all very well be correct about me. Everyone has a blind spot where themselves are concerned. I know I'm no genius, that's for sure. I may well be a narrow-minded ignorant idiot too - in fact I almost certainly am.

Also, I'll say that my method of debating is to choose the position I think makes most sense, and then try to defend that as best I can against arguments. I'm trying to convince myself more than I'm trying to convince any of you haha. (I'm actually very unsure about pretty much everything, but I can hide this uncertainty when writing to persuade as this is more effective.)

I really have no idea what to think on this topic. I have no opinion. I admit ignorance. I could be right, I could be wrong, I'm just testing out my thoughts.

And that's all I have to say really. Ciao.

[Paul Martin]

Martin wrote: You condemn "offensive behavior" and question others' capacity for engaging in "intelligent discussion."

Which thread are you reading? I didn't question her capacity for intelligent discussion and I'm not wondering how anyone can "question my veracity".

And why did your comment even show up on my phone? Stupid Goodreads.

[Mark]

Do you really think she's gone for good? I really was hoping to learn more about her almost famous tennis career.

I am beginning see that "haha" when I close my eyes.

[Holly]

Monty, would you really deny children the enjoyment of fantasy in their literature? While I know you are a very well-read person with many interesting ideas and perspectives on writers, reading, and the written word, I don't think you are as well schooled in the area of early childhood development.

Sometimes youngsters need to feel a certain amount of control and power.....fantasy and make believe provide that for them. Children's literature has always had a strong element of fantasy.

My second grader is reading at an eighth grade level. I have read aloud to her since before she was born, and she taught herself to read using the book "Go Dog, Go" at the age of three. Her personal library is very well rounded; we have one bookcase devoted entirely to juvenile non-fiction. On her own she has embraced a variety of different themes, including the reality-based books about children facing real life problems. She has even read "Animal Farm", and although the political/historical allusions escaped her she still grasped the message. At bedtime, I still read aloud to her and we are working on the Harry Potter series right now. What I want to do is instill a lifelong love of learning that will result in her eventually reading and enjoying all the classics as well as new fiction and non-fiction.

While it is my parental duty to teach her about the dangers and injustices of the world, I also need to teach her how to escape when it becomes too much. I am trying to raise a strong, intelligent, compassionate person who will also be happy and well adjusted, not a neurotic, medicated mess.

It is fine if you don't want to read Harry Potter, but don't pick on my child for reading it.......someone might accuse you of bullying:)

[Paul Martin]

Holly wrote: "Monty, would you really deny children the enjoyment of fantasy in their literature? While I know you are a very well-read person with many interesting ideas and perspectives on writers, reading, a..."

Well said, Holly.