Twilight Saga

I think it depends on what you think the "purpose" of reading is: improvement or entertainment (not that it can't be both). However, I am extremely wary of judging what and why others read. Whether or not Twilight and its ilk are any good is largely irrelevant, to my mind, especially when, as far as adolescents and developing readers go, it absolutely does not matter what people are reading but how much and whether or not it requires sustained attention to plot (I.e. A novel as opposed to journal articles or blog pieces-and, it's a continuum, so the more difficult the book the more focus it requires etc). For me, it is a lot like music, I love classical music; I love opera, and I sincerely believe that listening to classical music can be a more powerful and intellectually stimulating experience than Lily Allen, but that doesn't mean that people who just aren't interested in classical music are somehow getting music wrong...Or that I should hide how much I enjoy hopping around the house to "Smile". I love the Harry Potter phenomenon, where people stand in line and dress up and get excited about books; I do wish that Twilight wasn't quite so eye rollingly ridiculous, but I'm mostly happy that people are buying more and more books, not fewer, and that something like "Wolf Hall" can be a publishing miracle along with the newest Nora Roberts.  

I do understand what you're saying, Jewlz and Jennie, but if the value of a bad book is that it leads people to good books, then that doesn't mean that the act itself of reading the bad book has any actual value to offer.  It's still a waste of time and doesn't improve the brain in any significant way.  Plus not everyone graduates from bad books to good ones.  I have a friend who has the kindest heart imaginable, but is not intellectually curious or, truthfully, very smart.  She reads all the time, but never touches anything except romances.  Now, I like a good bodice-ripper as much as anyone, but I'm under no illusion about their quality.  I actually feel stupider after I've read one, because my brain has effectively been put on standby whilst I read it.  Likewise, reading romances doesn't benefit my friend in any noticeable way.  She doesn't learn anything from them, and is not inspired to read anything better.  This is why I'm skeptical about the assertion that getting children to read something is a pure and unequivocal good.  Maybe this is me becoming an old fogey, but I feel that the books I read as a child were better quality than the children's fiction that is churned out today.  Publishing, IMO, is getting more and more like filmmaking in that it's geared towards the lowest common denominator and doesn't trouble itself much about quality as long as something will sell.  How do children really benefit from the time they spend reading mass-produced garbage?  Yes, they may as a consequence read better books later, and if they're fortunate they will have a teacher like Jennie who will lead them to better books, but there's no guarantee that that will happen and meanwhile they are spending their time and their brain cells on material of questionable merit.  Why bother with the bad books at all?  Why not just give kids the good stuff from the start?     

I have to say I totally disagree with you about the genre of romance novels!

There are plenty of trashy, ridiculous ones out there but I read loads of historical romance novels that were very well written and gave me a very advanced vocabulary for my age. I discovered romance novels my freshman year of high school - my sophomore year of high school, a paper I wrote for my English class made my teacher give me a vocabulary test - she didn't think I could possibly know all the words that I had used in it, and therefore I must have plagiarized. She was wrong!!

Not only that, but romance novels in the "historical fiction" genre helped stimulate my interest and further studies in history. I just think you can't say an ENTIRE genre is trash and I think most books actually do require some thought process to go into them. I don't know how you can read with your brain turned off!

I have to say I totally disagree with you about the genre of romance novels!

I could be wrong, but I think perhaps historyenne was talking about the Mills & Boone style of romance novel, rather than the entire genre?

I think it depends on what you think the "purpose" of reading is: improvement or entertainment (not that it can't be both). However, I am extremely wary of judging what and why others read. Whether or not Twilight and its ilk are any good is largely irrelevant, to my mind, especially when, as far as adolescents and developing readers go, it absolutely does not matter what people are reading but how much and whether or not it requires sustained attention to plot (I.e. A novel as opposed to journal articles or blog pieces-and, it's a continuum, so the more difficult the book the more focus it requires etc).

Totally agree with this, Jennie.

I think bodice ripper specifically refers to historical romances, although their quality varies.  I read a lot of them as a tween and early teen, and I have to agree with Reinadeluz that they can teach you about or at least spark an interest in a certain time period.  I don't know how popular they are any more because I am not a romance reader at all any more.  I never see one for sale any more though.  

I discovered a hidden cache of them (this was the one genre my father disapproved of, not because of the sex, but because he felt I was wasting too much time reading them) when I was packing for uni, and I re-read a couple.  Some were really bad, but I remember there were like three writers who didn't adhere to the more formulaic method of writing them and had heroines who had sex outside of marriage and didn't end up marrying the men who "deflowered" them.  

The formula, for those who have never read them is:

Virgin meets future husband and hates him.  They eventually end up in a situation where they end up having sex, usually slightly against the heroine's will until her body defies her and gives into the seduction (hence the nickname). There may be some other complicating factor like another betrothed (typical), a desire to stay single, kidnapping, or villain other than a former love interest standing in the way.  The heroine usually discovers that she's pregnant.  The couple may meet a few times for clandestine sex before the wedding.  There should be 3-4 instances of getting it on in the book, a few of them rather graphic in that romance sort of way with the quivering, gasping, and manhoods alight.  Anyway, the couple end up married, and depending on the length of the marriage conflict, the novel may soon end, but sometimes there are other things that try to break the couple up.  Eventually everything gets resolved.  The villains get punished or find redemption.  And always, everyone lives happily ever after unless it's a series. THE END.


I did pick up an interest in history reading them.  It's not the same level of information as you get from reading a non-fiction account of the era or even historic novel, but it can give you background.  Sometimes the detail these writers go into is a bit surprising.  But even with all that history, I could never see myself reading them again unless it was someone who didn't follow the formulas.

Hahahaha that was brilliant, Legs!

The romance genre is still very much alive and well. I worked at a public library for several years and I'll admit I used to have a giggle whenever certain people would take those books out from the library, such as the elderly woman who took out a bag full of graphic vampire sex books! And it's always strange to think someone makes a livelihood from writing those. I was once looking for an internship at a publishing house and there was one available for a fantasy/romance imprint in the editorial department (so probably proofreading centaur sex and the like); I couldn't bring myself to apply.

As for the argument about reading increasing vocabulary, I once heard that children's fiction (anything past picture books for beginning readers) have a better vocabulary than most adult fiction. They also tend to have more engaging/better written stories because young children won't keep reading something they don't like. I absolutely love children for that. Why is it that once we hit a certain age we'll just keep reading, knowing a book's rubbish or being completely bored with it, but hoping it will eventually get better?

The Mills and Boon / Harlequin type of romances are still popular.  I work in a charity shop and they get donated by the cr@pload and bought up in twos and threes, oftentimes by elderly women!

I'm not even slightly interested in the Twilight series (so bored of vampires already!  Read LeStat when I was in my early 20's, that was enough.), but I think a bit of junk in a well-rounded diet (reading and food both!) is not a totally bad thing, and yeah if it gets an interested sparked in history or whatever it's definitely a good thing!

Anybody remember Nancy Drew Mysteries and Judy Blume books?  That's what I read as a pre-teen and even into my teen years.  Can't say I would have been interested in a story where two guys obsessed over the same girl at that age to be honest, but it looks like I may be the odd one out where that is concerned!

Nancy Drew was one of the staples of my childhood (I still have ALL of the original 50, proudly displayed in a bookcase in the living room). I loved her. I re-read them every once in awhile; I find the formulaic writing incredibly soothing, and the mysteries are rather fun. I've realized lately that what I read is sooooo connected to my emotional state at the time. Recently, I was super stressed with work, so I read about a dozen young adult novels and some historical romance/mystery/what have you.  But I'm coming out of it now, so I've picked up two more literary fiction type books as my brain wants more "hearty" food.
A friend and I used to trade chapters in a "spoof" romance we were writing (at one point the heroine had been captured by pirates, rescued by an exotic Indian prince, re-captured by a different set of pirates, and then shocking re-rescued by an English lord, hee)--I don't read a lot of straight romance, but I do like the suspense/historical/whatever subgenres on occasion, especially with the less formulaic writers. Anyone here visited "Smart b*tches, Trashy Books"? It's a fantastic website for all things romance oriented, and they have amazing discussions on reading over there.
The only genre I've never gotten into was chick-lit.  Except for Bridget Jones, which had me laughing so hard I cried, I've just never felt inspired to pick one up.

but I think a bit of junk in a well-rounded diet (reading and food both!) is not a totally bad thing,

I agree with that, but not everyone has a good balanced reading diet. (or food, but that's another issue!)

I read the Judy Blume books when I was around 8 or 9, as well as things like Laura Ingalls Wilder, Louisa May Alcott, and a lot of the more classic children's books.  I had finished the children's room in our library when I was around that age (which contained some of the stuff appropriate for 8-12 year olds).  Our librarian didn't allow me to go to the young adult section until I was 10.  Now, a good librarian would have pointed me to the classics, but this one didn't.  I started reading my parents' and grandparents' books which included a copy of 1984 (which may explain my obsession with dystopic fiction) and eventually the bodice rippers (one of my grandmothers had literally shelves of these).  I didn't get into mystery, crime, or thrillers until I was an adult and not really until I met my husband.  I did read a few Nancy Drew novels, but I didn't like them.  My father forced me to read Jules Verne, who I despised and can't read to this day because of it, visionary or not.  Once I was allowed the "young adult" or teen, I was sort of over it, and read a lot of non-fiction and then adult books.  I read a lot of trash as a teen.  Maybe trash almost exclusively from the age of 12 to 16, but I am glad I didn't let my love of reading lapse.  When I was 16 I started in on the classics, starting with modern 20th century classics.  I read so many of them, I couldn't bear to read trash for the longest time as it hurt my brain to read it.

I definitely would approach reading with my own children slightly differently, but as I said a few posts upthread, I think what's the most important is someone identifying as a "reader" rather than quality or even initial quantity.

I'm kind of on the fence in regards to just reading something, even if it is a bit trashy, over not reading at all... but that's probably because I've always been an avid reader and if I'm going to read something, it want it to be well-written. I read tons of books as a kid and I barely went near books similar to Twilight until I was in my teens. When I was a child, I was reading books by authors like Enid Blyton, L. M. Montgomery, Frances Hodgson Burnett, E. Nesbit, C. S. Lewis and Roald Dahl. I didn't start reading 'trashier' types of novels (YA romance, YA horror etc.) until I was 13 or 14 and I didn't actually read any Harry Potter until I was 18. Had Twilight come out earlier, I would probably have read it at about age 16, as a form of escapism rather than to broaden my reading horizons (I was 22 when Twilight came out, but I didn't read it until I was 25).

In contrast though, my two younger brothers hate reading (they are both slightly dyslexic, which makes reading hard for them, so they get frustrated with it), so for them, any book would be a good book if it got them interested in reading.

In contrast though, my two younger brothers hate reading (they are both slightly dyslexic, which makes reading hard for them, so they get frustrated with it), so for them, any book would be a good book if it got them interested in reading.

One of my younger sisters has dyslexia, and she reads mostly things like VC Andrews. Maybe by now she's moved on to things like Twilight, but I am glad she reads at all.

I'm kind of on the fence in regards to just reading something, even if it is a bit trashy, over not reading at all... but that's probably because I've always been an avid reader and if I'm going to read something, it want it to be well-written. I read tons of books as a kid and I barely went near books similar to Twilight until I was in my teens. When I was a child, I was reading books by authors like Enid Blyton, L. M. Montgomery, Frances Hodgson Burnett, E. Nesbit, C. S. Lewis and Roald Dahl. I didn't start reading 'trashier' types of novels (YA romance, YA horror etc.) until I was 13 or 14 and I didn't actually read any Harry Potter until I was 18. Had Twilight come out earlier, I would probably have read it at about age 16, as a form of escapism rather than to broaden my reading horizons (I was 22 when Twilight came out, but I didn't read it until I was 25).

In contrast though, my two younger brothers hate reading (they are both slightly dyslexic, which makes reading hard for them, so they get frustrated with it), so for them, any book would be a good book if it got them interested in reading.

One man's trash is another man's treasure My English teacher used to slap Enid Blyton's out of our hands, saying they were badly written twaddle, and honestly, even at the time I agreed with her, I am aware those books are "classic" but for the most part they are poorly written in my opinion.

She believed it was a crime that I would waste my "time and mind on something so trivial"

I was about 9 at the time and I remember her asking me why I didn't read "real" books and me not really having an answer, everyone else was reading that sort of stuff, and my parents didn't read AT ALL.

She gave me a copy of "I am David" which I still have and later that year I got the Hobbit for xmas and devoured it,  wondering why I wasted my time on stuff like Blyton and Judy Blume, by the summer I was 10 there was no going back, I bypassed the "Point horror" (remember those?!) books that everyone was into at 12-13 and started reading just adult books about then (just before secondary school - my parents never cared about that kind of thing), I never read any "young adult" literature at all I don't think, I started reading those as escapism when I got past university.

When I started reading Twilight and looked up Steph Meyers..in an article I read these books were orginally published for reluctant readers..and then rereleased for a wider audience...

later that year I got the Hobbit for xmas and devoured it, 

Ahhh.  I was older when I first read The Hobbit--the summer that I was 23 or 24.  Then the floodgates opened onto the fantasy genre and there was so much for me to read.  Not exactly "real literature", but the stuff was really compelling for me.

My parents didn't read much either.  We had one small bookshelf when I was growing up and there were a few books of Jewish interest "Joys of Yiddish" something like that, and some of my dad's books on basic psychology for educators (he took a couple college night classes) which I did try to read.  I also read a bit of Dickens but it was hard to follow for me at that age (9), and lots of books on the occult and stuff like how to lucid dreams, true ghost stories, life after death (topics that pretty much still have an influence on me today). 

Also, when I was 14 I read, "Chariots of the Gods" (a "documentary" on how Earth was populated by aliens way before ancient Egyptian times, etc, etc and how ancient Egypt was merely a remnant of the civilization of Atlantis, etc. etc.  I still love stuff like that though I do take it with a grain of salt these days.  I had a history teacher then (still one of my fave teachers ever) who did not discourage me from reading that type of "history" but did make me aware that the people who wrote them usually were not qualified historians or anthropologists.  "Good point!"  I thought back then.  I respect him to this day for not discouraging me and allowing me to make up my own mind.