talkmagic.co.uk

Do you think these kinds of books are;

a> Good because it get's people reading

or

b> Bad because they immediately top best book ever written charts and undermines much better (if less successful) literature.

I have read both series but neither are anything special so far as I can see, just good timing of old ideas, rehashed in to a modern context for children/teenagers.

Both series are very linear so far as "then main character did this, then main character did that", I found the Twilight series more engaging than the Harry Potter books but New Moon was one of the worst books I have ever read only battling through it because I had already bought the third one.

Just wondered what you all thought as we have quite an international spread to the board.

I think they're great, if they're getting people reading and using their imaginations then what can be bad about them.

I'm reading Breaking Dawn (fourth in the Twilight series) at the moment. Book one was enjoyable, but I've lost interest as the series developed and am not sure I'll bother buying any more. Maybe I'm cynical, but I get the impression from the plotlines and quality of prose that she sort of ran out of interesting ideas and there were some large holes in the plot. I'm a huge vampire fan, so read most novels on the subject and think this series is ok, but far from the best. Twilight wasn't bad, but could have been so much better. For adult readers, Anita Blake is worth a read and is much grittier.

I read the Harry Potter series as they were released. The start and end were the best bits. I like the originality of the first book and the darkness of the last couple. It was still formulaic and weak in places, but good entertainment.

I think anything that gets kids and teenagers off the console and into books is a good thing!

I don't think that books being the top of charts is much of a matter for concern. I spent almost ten years working for a book shop and it was always our understanding that the charts are usually a reflection of which books the retailers predict or hope are going to be big sellers and it's not unknown for publishers to offer incentives for their titles to be placed front and foremost in the stores to encourage poeple to buy them.

If you did a survey asking people why they read, I'm sure you'd get a wide range of responses. Some people read for entertainment, some read to increase their knowledge, some read to find enlightenment, and some read just so that they can be seen to be reading!

There are books for everyone out there and no single book will satisfy everyone. I'm not interested in either Harry Potter or Twilight but if people enjoy reading them, then more power to them.

Really what I'm saying is I vote both: I think that the books are good as they get people interested in reading but also bad from a snobbish point of view as I thought J K Rowlings writing was terrible and more importantly VAMPIRES SHOULD NEVER SPARKLE!

Personally, the titles mentioned do not appeal to me at all, but I don't see the harm in books of this nature. Reading books has got to be better than spending endless hours on the computer or games console. But consoles also have their advantages in terms of developing certain skills (like killing zombies - you never know ) but it's all about striking a balance.

I think there can be a certain level of elitism and snobbery when it comes to books. As far as I'm concerned, if a book holds your attention and you're enjoying it, then it's a good book. That's it. It doesn't matter a jot what the subject matter is, who the author is, or how linear and formulaic the plot is. That's irrelevant. I've read classics that I didn't enjoy half as much as Dean Koontz's latest paperback. What does that say about me? Who cares? I enjoyed it and it got me reading more; that's the important thing here.

You can analyse a book as much as you want in terms of how well it is written and how well-established an author is, but at the end of the day it all means nothing if no one is doing any reading.

Replicant wrote:Personally, the titles mentioned do not appeal to me at all, but I don't see the harm in books of this nature. Reading books has got to be better than spending endless hours on the computer or games console. But consoles also have their advantages in terms of developing certain skills (like killing zombies - you never know ) but it's all about striking a balance.

I think there can be a certain level of elitism and snobbery when it comes to books. As far as I'm concerned, if a book holds your attention and you're enjoying it, then it's a good book. That's it. It doesn't matter a jot what the subject matter is, who the author is, or how linear and formulaic the plot is. That's irrelevant. I've read classics that I didn't enjoy half as much as Dean Koontz's latest paperback. What does that say about me? Who cares? I enjoyed it and it got me reading more; that's the important thing here.

You can analyse a book as much as you want in terms of how well it is written and how well-established an author is, but at the end of the day it all means nothing if no one is doing any reading.

I agree hugely with this. I mentioned New Moon as one of the worst books I have read but equally I found Crime and Punishment a laborious bore.

I voted both to this because I agree it is good that people read, the problem is most people only read what's on the Tesco book chart which I think is a shame. I am not talking about epic pieces of literature (although a great story Lord of the Rings was reallllllllllllly drawn out in many places), just I think that books like these are generating a herd culture of focused reading the hot new thing (usually a novel severely lacking in creativity) instead of expanding peoples reading they just pick up whatever is number one in the chart.

I too enjoy Dean Koontz (I've not read Anita Blake, I'll add it to my list, in return I recommend the Brian Lumley Necroscope series), as well as James Masterton and Shaun Hutson for this genré but I wonder if many will discover these other authors if they are spoonfed what they need to read.

A_n_t wrote:I voted both to this because I agree it is good that people read, the problem is most people only read what's on the Tesco book chart which I think is a shame.

I agree. As a matter of principle, I never buy books from any supermarket. They have killed off many independent bookshops by selling loss leaders and introducing huge discounts. Their selection is poor and there's no personal service. Not for me.

A_n_t wrote:I too enjoy Dean Koontz (I've not read Anita Blake, I'll add it to my list, in return I recommend the Brian Lumley Necroscope series), as well as James Masterton and Shaun Hutson for this genré but I wonder if many will discover these other authors if they are spoonfed what they need to read.

Dean Koontz is a great author, but I think he's going the way of Stephen King. Too prolific and the newer stories aren't as good as his earlier works. Watchers is my all time favourite Koontz novel. I have the Necroscope series in a box in the loft and never managed to get the time to start it, but I might dig it out now that my hols are approaching. Shaun Hutson is very good for reading late at night

Dean Koontz's earlier work is definitely better than his releases in recent years. Watchers, The Bad Place, Lightning, and much more; all superb. I think he has run out of decent ideas of late.

Wishmaster wrote:Dean Koontz is a great author, but I think he's going the way of Stephen King. Too prolific and the newer stories aren't as good as his earlier works. Watchers is my all time favourite Koontz novel. I have the Necroscope series in a box in the loft and never managed to get the time to start it, but I might dig it out now that my hols are approaching. Shaun Hutson is very good for reading late at night

I really enjoyed them but I was only young when I read them, maybe 13 or so? I did read one of the "new" ones which was some sort of inbetween/prequel as has become fashionable to do and even that was okay, although not as good as the original saga.

I think people are losing the ability to just pick up a book and read it because it's there. I have recently read Stephanie Meyer (obviously), Peter Morwood, Conn Iggulden, Terry Brooks and (a little bit to my shame because my wife just finished reading it and I have run out of things to read) the sequel to Secret Diaries of a Call Girl by Belle Je Jour. I do not list this to say "ooh look at me (well maybe a little bit...) but more as what I see as being lost. People won't read certain things because they are "boring", I at least give something a try to see if it does have any value before deciding this to be the case, I just hope future generations do so too.

I voted both. There is a vast difference between literature and trashy fiction which had nothing to do with snobbishness. The difference is one of beauty. Some literature is very, very beautiful. Trash fiction generally isn't. Now before you get on your high horses, I like trash fiction. In fact I'm currently reading Robert Jordan's 'The Wheel of Time' series. However the effect on my consciousness from reading trashy fiction is very different to that when I read fiction of a higher quality. Literature has a refining effect on my state of mind, it raises me into a higher state of consciousness. Trash fiction has a coarsening effect on my mind.

To those of you who state there is no difference, well, to be blunt, you don't know what you're talking about. The gulf between Dean Koonzt and Haruki Murakami is huge.

I've not read the Twilight books but I have read the Potter books. I thought they were poorly written and not just compared to something like Anna Karenina. Compared to other trash fiction I thought the standard of writing was poor. Having said that, anything that gets kids off consoles and away from TV can only be a good thing.

Gary Dickson wrote:To those of you who state there is no difference, well, to be blunt, you don't know what you're talking about. The gulf between Dean Koonzt and Haruki Murakami is huge.

I agree; there is a world of difference between the authors you mentioned. But that doesn't make one better than the other. The point I'm making is that it is all subjective; just because a book has a "coarsening effect" on you, it doesn't necessarily mean it will have the same effect on someone else. You may judge a particular book to be poor (for whatever reason), but that doesn't make it so. As long as people are reading, it doesn't matter if it's Koontz, Murakami, Rowling, Shakespeare, Austen, Hutson, Dickens....

Replicant wrote:I agree; there is a world of difference between the authors you mentioned. But that doesn't make one better than the other. The point I'm making is that it is all subjective; just because a book has a "coarsening effect" on you, it doesn't necessarily mean it will have the same effect on someone else. You may judge a particular book to be poor (for whatever reason), but that doesn't make it so. As long as people are reading, it doesn't matter if it's Koontz, Murakami, Rowling, Shakespeare, Austen, Hutson, Dickens....

I don't think it's all subjective. Could you find anyone who could come up with a really good argument as to why Katie Price's 'Angel' is a superior work of fiction to Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty-Four'? I don't mean to sound snobby but there's trash fiction, and then there is Jordan. I would post quotes from it, but all the best lines would be taken out by the websites censor!

A J Irving wrote:I don't think it's all subjective. Could you find anyone who could come up with a really good argument as to why Katie Price's 'Angel' is a superior work of fiction to Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty-Four'? I don't mean to sound snobby but there's trash fiction, and then there is Jordan. I would post quotes from it, but all the best lines would be taken out by the websites censor!

I think that is an unfair comparison purely because I do not count anything Jordan has had written for her (ghost writer, see small print) worthy of status as book/novel/fiction.

Seriously though I do see Replicant's point because there will be many undoubtedly "pregnant for the fourth time by the third father of their children" women out there who could barely bring themselves to pick up 1984, let alone read it. They would class objects such as the type you mentioned as being great reads (probably because of the large type and double spacing), therefore it is subjective. On that basis I can see why they are a good thing, at least they are reading something but I doubt these kinds of people will ever pick up another book to read ever and as a result their children probably will not either.

A_n_t wrote:Seriously though I do see Replicant's point because there will be many undoubtedly "pregnant for the fourth time by the third father of their children" women out there who could barely bring themselves to pick up 1984, let alone read it. They would class objects such as the type you mentioned as being great reads (probably because of the large type and double spacing), therefore it is subjective. On that basis I can see why they are a good thing, at least they are reading something but I doubt these kinds of people will ever pick up another book to read ever and as a result their children probably will not either.

I think you may be right about that. Despite my own opinions of her work, everyone can read whatever they feel like, it's just annoying that there are better books out there, and better unpublished authors who are overlooked because the publishers know who'll sell more copies.

I guess that's why noone (at this point) has voted that HP & Twilight a blots, choosing instead either the 'good' or 'both' options.

I am sure if I had used Jordan's "work" as the example then that would have been very different.

I should probably simplified, just because literature is accessible and read by the masses, is this necessarily a good thing if it does nothing to broaden the horizons.

Quite hypocritically of me, although I said I like to read a book before criticising it, I have never read any of the Jordan publications.

Has anyone read these? I expect the content to be shallow and glib but is it at least spelt correctly with proper grammar? I remember Simon Amstell reading out some big brother contestants book on Never Mind the Buzzcocks and the grammar was atrocious.