CCBC-Net Archives
[CCBC-Net] Reluctant Readers, Reading lists and so on
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Cassie Wilson <cassiewilson>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:36:04 -0400
I'm agreeing with just about everything everyone is saying about finding the right piece for a reluctant reader, but I have to quibble about
"story" being everything. To read only for story is just skimming the surface; you could listen to soap operas just as well---they are truly just about story. A good piece of literature has to have a little more depth to be a lasting pleasure and stay with you. It has to have realistic or believable characters, a direction at least, and i can't really get too into anything that I have to struggle through the wording of. Some writing is so smooth it almost flows into the brain and pulls you in before you know what's happening, like early Diana Wynne Jones
(it certainly doesn't hurt that she has great stories too). When you learn to appreciate the grace of the writing and the other elements of literature, it can only add to the pleasure of reading. That doesn't mean I'm lobbying for the same required classics that still torment high school students or that students have to be beaten over the head with symbolism, theme, etc. so that a short, simple and beautiful story like The Pearl is remembered as a torturous nightmare.
Whether Shakespeare is incomprehensible or not doesn't mean that it isn't good and whether Captain Underpants is seen as revolting or not doesn't mean that it's not good; they both have objective elements of quality that exist regardless of taste. It simply means that it isn't pleasurable to a particular reader at his particular level.
And what about non-fiction? It may or may not have a "story" but can be extremely worthwhile and a perfect choice for many readers.
That being said, research seems to show that pleasure readers do score higher on reading tests (for whatever that's worth, but it should shut up some of the critics of free choice reading.) whether it's because they read because it's easy or it's easy to read because they've done so much of it.
This is probably only worth about a cent and a half,
Cassie wilson
Received on Tue 08 Aug 2006 09:36:04 PM CDT
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:36:04 -0400
I'm agreeing with just about everything everyone is saying about finding the right piece for a reluctant reader, but I have to quibble about
"story" being everything. To read only for story is just skimming the surface; you could listen to soap operas just as well---they are truly just about story. A good piece of literature has to have a little more depth to be a lasting pleasure and stay with you. It has to have realistic or believable characters, a direction at least, and i can't really get too into anything that I have to struggle through the wording of. Some writing is so smooth it almost flows into the brain and pulls you in before you know what's happening, like early Diana Wynne Jones
(it certainly doesn't hurt that she has great stories too). When you learn to appreciate the grace of the writing and the other elements of literature, it can only add to the pleasure of reading. That doesn't mean I'm lobbying for the same required classics that still torment high school students or that students have to be beaten over the head with symbolism, theme, etc. so that a short, simple and beautiful story like The Pearl is remembered as a torturous nightmare.
Whether Shakespeare is incomprehensible or not doesn't mean that it isn't good and whether Captain Underpants is seen as revolting or not doesn't mean that it's not good; they both have objective elements of quality that exist regardless of taste. It simply means that it isn't pleasurable to a particular reader at his particular level.
And what about non-fiction? It may or may not have a "story" but can be extremely worthwhile and a perfect choice for many readers.
That being said, research seems to show that pleasure readers do score higher on reading tests (for whatever that's worth, but it should shut up some of the critics of free choice reading.) whether it's because they read because it's easy or it's easy to read because they've done so much of it.
This is probably only worth about a cent and a half,
Cassie wilson
Received on Tue 08 Aug 2006 09:36:04 PM CDT
