The Most Overrated Books Showing 1,101-1,150 of 5,680

[Mark]

Holly wrote: "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."

I concur with Paul. Well said. But I can understand Monty's point, too.

When my son, who is now 22, was still in his amniotic sac I proclaimed I would forbid television until he was 10 or 12 years old. Yes, I was foolish--or in the long run not strong willed--enough to think that could work. I had some whack ass theory that certain neural pathways must formed without the deleterious affects of the evil video (and this way before high def). Boy oh boy, that crumbled in the face of day to day reality as quickly as did my resolve that we would not use disposable diapers.

I do have one example of imposition of parental authority over culture consumption that I remain proud of to this day. When he started to read a lot on his own, I had mentioned, in passing several times, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I didn't think it had made that much impression on him. But when the advance press for the LotR movies he was buck wild excited about it.

As someone who had his first serious book crush with all four of those novels when I was in 7th grade, I was too. That probably also motivated me tell my son that he ought to read the prequel and the trilogy before we saw even the first movie. My reasoning was that once he'd seen the cinematic rendering, he'd never be able to experience with fresh eyes and mind what I thought was a truly memorable (dare I say "magical") adventure in reading.

And the little guy took my words to heart (it happens every once in awhile between father and son, in my experience usually when least expected). He read and thoroughly enjoyed all four books in, as I recall, the year of media hullabaloo leading up to the premier of the first flick.

Sorry for going on and on about my exciting youthful exploits as a nearly professional tennis player, but the conversation opened up a memory vein and all of the above flowed out. I had another point to make about literary vs. genre fiction from the realm of my own experience, but I'll *ahem* let someone else take the mic for a bit as I'm sure I've given Martin plenty of material at which he can aim his lobotomized attempts at snark and Pee-wee Hermanesque sarcasm (a big difference, to be fair, is that Pee-wee is often actually funny).

[Monty J]

Rachel wrote: "And yet you feel qualified to comment?."

Where have I said anything bout Harry Potter other than admitting I couldn't stand reading past page one or 15 minutes of the film?

[Emma]

This thread is a seething, putrid pit of arrogance and condescension. I'm obviously too stupid for my opinion to be of any value because I'm relatively young and I'm not an English major, but you people seriously need to get over yourselves. If you have to resort to calling another person an idiot or a c*nt to make your point, then your argument wasn't very good in the first place. Did you ever wonder why relatively few people continue to engage on this thread? It's not because your vastly superior intellelect frightens away the rest of us mere mortals, but because you make literature look about as appealing as being kicked in the head by a mule. Maybe instead of foaming at the mouth at anyone who dares to disagree with you, you should acknowlege that you don't know everything, open your minds to another point of veiw, and maybe, just maybe, you will learn something instead of wallowing in your incredibly narrow world veiw. A low IQ and lack of education doesn't make a person or their opinions invaluable. Seeing yourself as the most important person on the planet does. But, by all means, pay me no mind. If you enjoy stagnant discussion carry on!

And, yes, I am aware that my grammar is atrocious. The first person to point out my split infinitives gets a gold star. Congratulations, you just won 3rd grade!

[Emma]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "And Hunger Games? I'm embarrassed for you to even drop it into the discussion. It's crap even next to Harry Potter. Poor writing, poor plotting, terrible character development, just not good."

Actually you all should really love Hunger Games because that is exactly what this thread looks like.

[S.W.]

If you'd read a little further, you'd have learned that Harry was an orphan. That's right in your wheelhouse, MontyJ. Maybe you should put down the reviews and open your mind? Where's your imagination? Have you lost touch with your inner child? The classics are not the only repository of truth.

Maybe you could read Harry Potter to the grand kids? Just some random thoughts...

[Monty J]

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..."

Where to you get that conclusion? You're reading something into what I wrote.

Go back and read the question I was answering. She asked why literature was better than genre. I said they can't be compared, that each had its own purpose, that people have different appetites. Literature is a smorgasbord.

Just because I have little appetite for fantasy doesn't mean I am denouncing fantasy for anyone else. I clearly stated it wasn't my cup of tea. When I was a kid I read some, saw some fantasy films, like everyone else. Gulliver's Travels, The Mowgli Stories, The Time Machine, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. Enjoyed them. But as I grew older my tastes changed and I gravitated toward more meatier stuff.

It is natural that life experience changes us.

A bee sting is an abstract notion to someone who's never been stung. Death and grieving were abstract notions to me until people close to me died. Love was an abstract notion until I experienced it.

The plight of the working poor was an abstraction until I worked as a laborer digging in the dirt alongside them in order to earn the money for an education. The experience enriched my life immensely, blessing me with an appreciation for John Steinbeck's work.

I spent six years in the Marine Corps Reserves rubbing elbows with men who had PTSD from combat service. It was an abstract concept until I was diagnosed with it myself stemming from childhood trauma.

There are insights gained through life experience that a nineteen year-old, even one with a genius IQ, can gain access to only through living a while, no matter how many books they read.

Until then by all means read whatever strikes your fancy.

[[deleted user]]

Emma wrote: "This thread is a seething, putrid pit of arrogance and condescension."

I couldn't agree more. In fact I'm ashamed to have been a participant in this thread. My only defense is that I didn't know it would turn out like this when I started posting. It just goes to prove that fans of literary fiction are no more wise or intelligent than fans of genre fiction - or fans of The X Factor, for that matter.

[Martha]

Emma wrote: "This thread is a seething, putrid pit of arrogance and condescension. I'm obviously too stupid for my opinion to be of any value because I'm relatively young and I'm not an English major, but you p..."

Emma, right on. There are many "discussions" out here on Goodreads where I feel exactly as you just described. As you say, "Get over yourselves." And, it is funny, wasn't Holden saying these kind of things too? Yeah, that's why I liked the book so much!

[Petergiaquinta]

Emma wrote: "If you have to resort to calling another person an idiot or a c*nt to make your point"

Oh my, who called whom a "c*nt"?

I called someone an "idiot." It seemed to fit the moment.

Sorry if that bothered you.

But join the discussion, by all means.

I'd love to get back to the idea about what works of literature are the literary equivalent of quantum mechanics. Anyone interested in returning to that idea? I haven't read it yet, but any thoughts about Hopscotch by Cortazar?

[[deleted user]]

Emma wrote: "This thread is a seething, putrid pit of arrogance and condescension. I'm obviously too stupid for my opinion to be of any value because I'm relatively young and I'm not an English major, but you p..."

HAHA! This post deserves a medal! You gave us all a good hard kick up the ass that we needed and deserved.

Great post. :)

[Daniel]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "I'd love to get back to the idea about what works of literature are the literary equivalent of quantum mechanics."

For me, It's gotta be Danielewski's House of Leaves.

Oh yeah, and Emma, don't try to make us sound like this homogeneous bunch of oppressors. We all have dissenting points of view within us. Monty doesn't dig Harry Potter, while many here appreciate it. Petergiaquinta likes A Song of Ice and Fire, while Mark doesn't. Many posters here have a bunch of different opinions about Gatsby and The Grapes of Wrath, which you can find some pages back, before this whole debacle. Some of us don't even believe a category such as "classics" should exist. We do, however, share something: we love literature, and we think of it as a major cultural component with the capacity to deeply affect and reflect lives. So, when someone barges in and tramples over every sensible aesthetic notion we hold dear, yeah, we team up. Call that condescension if you will. I'll call it a necessary effort.

[[deleted user]]

Daniel wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "I'd love to get back to the idea about what works of literature are the literary equivalent of quantum mechanics."

For me, It's gotta be Danielewski's House of Leaves.

Oh y..."

What have I said that is so controversial?

If you want to have a serious chance of getting published, you need to pay at least some attention to entertainment. Simple. It doesn't matter how "profound" your novel is, or how much "style" you have, if people don't want to read it.

[Anne Hawn]

Admittedly, this thread has degenerated some, but if you look back to when Rachel first joined, you will see that a lot of us attempted to convey our love of great literature to her. You will see a number of people who tried to say there there was a place for entertainment fiction and great literature but the value, in improving minds and society was not equal.

I found this quote from Huffington Post which I will repeat:

"In essence, the best Genre Fiction contains great writing, with the goal of telling a captivating story to escape from reality. Literary Fiction is comprised of the heart and soul of a writer's being, and is experienced as an emotional journey through the symphony of words, leading to a stronger grasp of the universe and of ourselves."

This has always been a good thread and a number of members appear frequently to discuss literature. Unfortunately, some trolls do get in and hijack the thread by making outrageous statements and refusing to try to see the opposite side of a topic.

Just as an experiment, I went back and looked at the quotes that I have marked as my favorites and I see huge ideas that thrill me. Those ideas, and countless others, have made me a different person. Judging by the ageless popularity of the books they are from, they have changed others. If you are interested, they are on my main page. Here's my #1:

“I don't see the use of reading the same thing over and over again,' said Phillip. 'That's only a laborious form of idleness.'
But are you under the impression that you have so great a mind that you can understand the most profound writer at a first reading?'
I don't want to understand him, I'm not a critic. I'm not interested in him for his sake but for mine.'
Why do you read then?'
Partly for pleasure, because it's a habit and I'm just as uncomfortable if I don't read as if I don't smoke, and partly to know myself. When I read a book I seem to read it with my eyes only, but now and then I come across a passage, perhaps only a phrase, which has a meaning for me, and it becomes part of me; I've got out of the book all that's any use to me and I can't get anything more if I read it a dozen times. ...”
― W. Somerset Maugham, Of Human Bondage

Here's another from the same source:

You will find as you grow older that the first thing needful to make the world a tolerable place to live in is to recognize the inevitable selfishness of humanity. You demand unselfishness from others, which is a preposterous claim that they should sacrifice their desires to yours. Why should they? When you are reconciled to the fact that each is for himself in the world you will ask less from your fellows. They will not disappoint you, and you will look upon them more charitably. Men seek but one thing in life -- their pleasure.

Then I went to The Mockingjay and took the five most popular quotes:

“You love me. Real or not real?"
I tell him, "Real.”
― Suzanne Collins, Mockingjay 19169 likes

“Remember, we're madly in love, so it's all right to kiss me anytime you feel like it.”
― Suzanne Collins, The Hunger Games 14776 likes

“You don’t forget the face of the person who was your last hope.”
― Suzanne Collins, The Hunger Games 14224 likes

“I wish I could freeze this moment, right here, right now and live in it forever.”
― Suzanne Collins, Catching Fire 10092 likes

“Happy Hunger Games! And may the odds be ever in your favor.” ― Suzanne Collins, The Hunger Games 8216 likes

I think this contrast is what most of us are trying to say.

[Geoffrey]

Yes, caviar is an acquired taste. So is grits. But most people who have acquired taste in both will prefer caviar.

In my case, even having lived in the South for 13 years, grits still tastes like cardboard.

I believe it`s the same with literature.

I recall fondly a line in the movie with Michael Caine where he plays a forever inebriated professor who spends a lot of time teaching a brilliant older women from the working class. The title of the film was EDUCATING RITA I believe. There`s a scene in the pub when her mother is discussing her daughter`s future upward mobility from her superior education..Everyone is singing bar songs and the mom in defense of her daughter`s future departure from the working class says wanly...yes, but she will learn better songs.

[[deleted user]]

Anne Hawn wrote: "Admittedly, this thread has degenerated some, but if you look back to when Rachel first joined, you will see that a lot of us attempted to convey our love of great literature to her. You will see ..."

And yet, which of these two books is most widely read and popular? Which have been read by the most people? The Hunger Games. Why? Because it's more accessible and entertaining.

The fact The Hunger Games is so much more widely read than On Human Bondage, is the reason why the first will have more impact on society and fiction - not because it is more "profound".

No books have entered as powerfully and quickly into our society and culture as the Harry Potter books. And this is the perfect example of my point.

If you want to write a "profound" book, then great. But make it entertaining enough to read.

[Geoffrey]

Personally, I can`t stand Harry Potter. I`ve never read the books but seen one or two of the movies at home. They bore me. Too much magic...I don`t understand the pyschology/characters....but I do suspect that they will go down in literary history like Lewis Carroll`s two books. Time will tell. Zane Grey was popular but few read him now. Same for the Oz series.

[[deleted user]]

Geoffrey wrote: "Yes, caviar is an acquired taste. So is grits. But most people who have acquired taste in both will prefer caviar.

"

You've been reading too much John Stuart Mill. :D

[Geoffrey]

Actually I have not.

[[deleted user]]

Geoffrey wrote: "Personally, I can`t stand Harry Potter. I`ve never read the books but seen one or two of the movies at home. They bore me. Too much magic...I don`t understand the pyschology/characters....but I do ..."


I prefer not to judge novels I haven't read.

Books and movies are entirely different fields of storytelling, each with their advantages and disadvantages over the other - so to judge the film and come to a conclusion on the book doesn't really work.

[[deleted user]]

Geoffrey wrote: "Actually I have not."

It was a joke. He came up with a similar idea to yours, and mixed it into Bentham's utilitarianism. But this isn't really the thread for that. :D

[Paul Martin]

Emma wrote: "This thread is a seething, putrid pit of arrogance and condescension.

True, but if you've been paying attention, you'll know it's due to several reasons, on on both "sides".

I'm relatively young and I'm not an English major

I suspect that many people in here are young and without an degree in English. There's nothing wrong with that and there never has been.

If you have to resort to calling another person an idiot or a c*nt to make your point, then your argument wasn't very good in the first place

Nobody uses insults to underline their points. They're just a natural reaction to someone’s repulsive behaviour.

Maybe instead of foaming at the mouth at anyone who dares to disagree with you

If you've been reading random posts on this thread, I can understand that that's what it looks like. But again, if you've been paying attention to what's been going on for the past few days it shouldn't surprise you.

A low IQ and lack of education doesn't make a person or their opinions invaluable

I don't think anyone here means that. There have been remarks about age, but usually after the discussion has escalated to an...uncomfortable level.

And, yes, I am aware that my grammar is atrocious. The first person to point out my split infinitives gets a gold star. Congratulations, you just won 3rd grade!

What does this have to do with anything? When has anyone on this thread commented on another persons grammar? English is my third language and FULL of mistakes, and yet I've never received one comment about my language (although I would actually appreciate it greatly). You don't seem very serious yourself, attacking straw men like that.

[Paul Martin]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Emma wrote: "If you have to resort to calling another person an idiot or a c*nt to make your point"

Oh my, who called whom a "c*nt"?

I called someone an "idiot." It seemed to fit the moment.

It was me, the narcissist sheep who's incapable of having an intelligent discussion.

What's the purpose of words, if not to use them when appropriate.

[Emma]

Anne Hawn wrote: "Admittedly, this thread has degenerated some, but if you look back to when Rachel first joined, you will see that a lot of us attempted to convey our love of great literature to her. You will see ..."

Actually, I have followed the thread from the very beginning, before most of you joined it and you have chased off every single person who dared to voice opposition. "Join or die" is the recurring theme of this thread. This began long before Rachel joined in. However, your treatment of Rachel is what finally pushed me to speak up and to stop following this thread. I have no interest in discussion with a group of people who think it is ever appropriate to call someone an idiot. After that, your opinions hold no merit with me. I only saw one person stand up for Rachel after she was called a c*nt and an idiot. That speaks volumes about your character. If you were really as smart as you claim to be you would want to inspire others, not step on them. But you obviously have no desire to inspire others to become passionate about literature. Your only goal in this thread is to stroke your egos.

[Paul Martin]

Daniel wrote: "For me, It's gotta be Danielewski's House of Leaves.

I remember there was a lot of fuss about it some years back. I thought about reading it, but then I've just completely forgotten about it - and I mean literally, it hasn't crossed my mind in maybe 6-7 years.

Now on my to-read list, thanks.

[[deleted user]]

Geoffrey wrote: "..."

By the way, I've just written a review of that short story you have on the site. Hope you find my comments helpful. :)

[Paul Martin]

Emma wrote: I only saw one person stand up for Rachel after she was called a c*nt and an idiot.

I said she was acting like one, and it was apparently on purpose from what she wrote right after. I have no idea what she's like outside this place. Probably decent, like most normal people, I suppose.

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin wrote: "Emma wrote: I only saw one person stand up for Rachel after she was called a c*nt and an idiot.

I said she was acting like one, apparently on purpose from what she wrote right after. I have no ide..."


We can't all be gentlemen and ladies like yourself...

[Daniel]

Paul Martin wrote: "Daniel wrote: "For me, It's gotta be Danielewski's House of Leaves.

I remember there was a lot of fuss about it some years back. I thought about reading it, but then I've just completely forgotten..."

Make sure you get it 1)on a physical edition, otherwise it's no good, and 2) in the beautiful, classic, black edition. The new brown one with reviews on the cover just loses all mystique.

[Anne Hawn]

I am so sorry you, Emma, or Rachel feel that way. It was certainly not my intention to run you off. Please accept my apology.

[[deleted user]]

Anne Hawn wrote: "I am so sorry you, Emma, or Rachel feel that way. It was certainly not my intention to run you off. Please accept my apology."

I accept your apology.

But you need to take care about how you "talk down" to people - especially me, it seems. You know little about me, and yet assume that because I have differing opinions on fiction I am therefore intellectually inferior, am suffering from a lack of life experience, or not open-minded enough to appreciate the books you do - which is false, I read everything I can and then come to a conclusion (unlike many people on here, - like MontyJ - who feel they can disparage books and the people who read them, without ever reading them themselves). Any or all of these may be true, for all you know, but how can you make these assumptions? Can't you see why this is frustrating and unfair?

[Monty J]

Rachel wrote: " like MontyJ - who feel they can disparage books and the people who read them.."

Show where I have disparaged anyone or any book.

Playing the wounded victim doesn't help your argument.

Besides, you've slung plenty of mud yourself. If you can't take the heat, perhaps the kitchen's not the best place for your feet.

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin wrote: "Emma wrote: I only saw one person stand up for Rachel after she was called a c*nt and an idiot.

I said she was acting like one, and it was apparently on purpose from what she wrote right after."

Yes, between post #1124 and #1131 I decided to have some fun and act like the person you all appear to see me as anyway. An arrogant closed-minded idiot. Why not have some fun and act like them, I thought. However, I gave up because it was hard work.

[Michael]

Rachel wrote: "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.)"

Why should anyone take your opinions seriously after you state that you don't actually believe them yourself? You have assumed a twisted approach to discussing a topic, a style of arguing that is bound to frustrate and antagonize others.

[[deleted user]]

Monty J wrote: "Rachel wrote: " like MontyJ - who feel they can disparage books and the people who read them.."

Show where I have disparaged anyone or any book.

Playing the wounded victim doesn't help your argum..."

For example, suggesting that genre fiction fans want to "escape" the world and it's problems, while literary fiction fans want to "face up to" the world and it's problems.

You make it sound as though fans of genre hide behind their book covers and stay there until the big bad world goes away.

You can't jump to these kinds of conclusions about people purely by what kind of fiction they like to read. People turn to a book for one reason and one reason only: they want a "good read". But everyone defines this differently. It has nothing to do with how much they are interested in the world's problems.

[[deleted user]]

Michael wrote: "Rachel wrote: "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 t..."

I meant that I don't have any CERTAINTY about anything. We learn by questioning our own thoughts and opinions, and testing them out. Just because I'm not SURE I'm right, doesn't mean I haven't thought about the ideas in depth - in fact, that is the reason I remain uncertain. Some flaws in your thinking can only be found through discussions with others.

[Paul Martin]

Rachel wrote: Yes, between post #1124 and #1131 I decided to have some fun and act like the person you all appear to see me as anyway. An arrogant closed-minded idiot. Why not have some fun and act like them, I thought. However, I gave up because it was hard work.

In the heat of the moment I saw it more as a eruption of some sort of latent arrogance - tunnel vision on my behalf, I guess.

I still think you more than brought it on yourself, but, yeah...I guess there's nothing more to say about that. It's fairly obvious that we won't see eye to eye on this, to put it mildly.

And I agree, it is hard work, and no, I don't enjoy it.

[Michael]

Rachel, you write: (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 don't see that it has been effective for you on this thread (have you persuaded anyone so far?), unless by effective you mean stirring up pointless controversy.

[Monty J]

Rachel wrote: "You make it sound as though fans of genre hide behind their book covers and stay there until the big bad world goes away."

That is a judgement on your part, not a fact.

There is no jumping to conclusions in describing human behavior according to the generally accepted vernacular. (See Wikedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escapism)

Here's a quote from within the article: "Some social critics warn of attempts by the powers that control society to provide means of escapism instead of actually bettering the condition of the people."
Count me among this group of critics.

There is nothing inherently wrong with escapist literature. Its therapeutic. People would go crazy if we couldn't vege when we felt the need. The widespread availability of these books proves the need for them.

That doesn't mean there aren't exceptional books among the genre. But they are exceptions.

[[deleted user]]

Monty J wrote: "Rachel wrote: "You make it sound as though fans of genre hide behind their book covers and stay there until the big bad world goes away."

That is a judgement on your part, not a fact.

There is no..."


Genre fiction is every bit as capable of showing negative aspects of our world and "facing reality" as literary fiction is. In fact, sometimes the line between the two is very blurred.

***

Erm, but "exceptional books" are the norm in literary fiction? I disagree.

[[deleted user]]

Michael wrote: "Rachel, you write: (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 don't see that it has been effect..."

I wasn't trying to persuade anyone - I was just trying to get people's views. But I probably could if they'd listen to what I'm actually saying.

So far, not one person has been able to give a single reason why literary fiction is inherently superior to genre fiction.

Maybe one will. Who knows? But until they can, I think the snobbery is unearned.

[Monty J]

Rachel wrote: "Erm, but "exceptional books" are the norm in literary fiction?."

That wasn't something I said. Sounds like you're jumping to conclusions and imagining things and then disagreeing with what you imagined.

Rachel wrote: "Genre fiction is every bit as capable of showing negative aspects of our world and "facing reality" as literary fiction is. In fact, sometimes the line between the two is very blurred."

Same here. I never made the declaration to which you are disagreeing. You're arguing with yourself.

It seems like you just want to start arguments for the sake of arguing. Are you that starved for attention?

I have no time for this.

[[deleted user]]

Monty J wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Erm, but "exceptional books" are the norm in literary fiction?."

That wasn't something I said. Sounds like you're jumping to conclusions and imagining things and then disagreeing wi..."

But wasn't it implied? If not, then how is this sentence relevant to the topic of difference between genre and literary? Why write it at all?

[Michael]

Monty J wrote: "It seems like you just want to start arguments for the sake of arguing. Are you that starved for attention?

I have no time this. "

Exactly.

[[deleted user]]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "....."

I was reading back over our discussion on themes in The Hunger Games, and it struck me that perhaps you need your novels to explicitly express their themes in very obvious ways (like in your examples from 1984 and Brave New World). But, most of the time, you aren't going to get this in modern genre fiction. Genre fiction is often more subtle - and in many ways, elegant - about the way themes are revealed. They are revealed through the story's content, not in large essay-like paragraphs. You have to "read between the lines" to get it, it isn't going to be given to you.

A perfect example in modern YA of how to weave intelligent themes into your story in this way is "Nation" by Terry Pratchett. It's possibly his most profound - and entertaining - novel, and it's for children.

Maybe some other fans of literary fiction have to have the themes "spelled out" for them too? That would explain how people can miss the themes in the Hunger Games series. Anne's quote from Of Human Bondage is also making the theme very in-your-face.

So maybe it's more to do with one group preferring an explicit way of revealing theme, and the other a more invisible way, rather than one not having themes at all?

[Daniel]

I already explained to you why that comparison doesn't apply, and you completely disregarded it. Besides, how can Nation be a YA novel and also "for children"? Get a grip.

And we didn't miss anything in Hunger Games. We all saw it. We just prefer when the writing isn't that superficial.

[Cosmic]

Monty J wrote: "Rachel wrote: " like MontyJ - who feel they can disparage books and the people who read them.."

Show where I have disparaged anyone or any book.

Playing the wounded victim doesn't help your argum..."

Thank you Monty! I thought Rachel was enjoying herself. Maybe this is where all her argument ultimately lead to. She must be enjoying the attention, because she only enjoys seeing the world from her point of view.

Rachel, that is a little juvenile and it shows your age. If you think age makes no difference in how you experience a book then read Hunger Games to a 9 month old and ask them what they think of it. They probably will not stick around or you will put the to sleep.

But if it makes you happy read it Rachel.
Dr. Seuss made my children happy too.

[[deleted user]]

Monty J wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Erm, but "exceptional books" are the norm in literary fiction?."

That wasn't something I said. Sounds like you're jumping to conclusions and imagining things and then disagreeing wi..."

Or perhaps you just aren't explaining yourself very clearly.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who misunderstands your posts. In one you say one thing, and in another you accept large parts of your previous posts didn't mean anything (in one post your message was: "literary fiction's goal is to point out problems in our world" - or something like that - in the next you say: "Genre fiction does that too" Then how can that be a defining trait of literary fiction?). I just don't get it, sorry.

[[deleted user]]

Daniel wrote: "I already explained to you why that comparison doesn't apply, and you completely disregarded it. Besides, how can Nation be a YA novel and also "for children"? Get a grip.

And we didn't miss anyth..."

In publishing, "children's" books are broadly classified as being written for an audience under the age of eighteen. YA (teenage) is children's fiction.

[Daniel]

Of course not, The Perks of Being a Wallflower is YA, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is Children's lit. Completely different themes, completely different aesthetic sensibilities, completely different demographic, completely different conventions.

[[deleted user]]

Daniel wrote: "Of course not, The Perks of Being a Wallflower is YA, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is Children's lit. Completely different themes, completely different aesthetic sensibilities, completely ..."

No, they are both children's books. But there are various sub-divisions within children's fiction - picture books (Very Hungry Caterpillar), "middle grade" (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), YA (The Golden Compass)... to name a few.