On Campus, Vampires Are Besting the Beats - washingtonpost.com

[orangerful]

On Campus, Vampires Are Besting the Beats - washingtonpost.com

I don't know how I feel about this article. Yeah, when you're in college you're supposed to be all "experimental" (whatever that means) but I feel the author is just downright snobby! I mean, I'm not a huge fan of the 'Twilight' series by a long-shot, but I wouldn't insult people the way this article does. How about these people want to read for ESCAPE and ENJOYMENT and not suffer through texts that they will be forced to read in class later anyway?

I really have a problem with people that talk like everyone should read the "classics" or they are bad people. Out of context, some of them are damn near unreadable. Others are just depressing. I see enough of the miserable world on the news, why would I want to read a book about it? And as for the more controversial books mentioned...perhaps they are getting their more controversial/political discussion in other formats (TV, the Internet) and when they go to read print books, they choose something a bit lighter. I think it has less to do with their political views and more to do with reading for pleasure (omg what a novel idea! get it-NOVEL!)

PLUS people discover that stuff when they are ready to discover it. I wouldn't have gotten Hunter Thompson's whacked out views when I was 18, heck, he still scares me! I barely had time to read for FUN in college, and when I did I would pick up something random at the library that looked like it would be less technical than the essays Westward Expansion I had to read for my AMST courses....And the comment that 13 year old girls like it is just being harsh. The book was intended for high schoolers - yes 13 year old girls have latched on to it but so have many adults. It's about community and reading what your friends/peers are reading so you can discuss...I just...BLURGH!!!!!!

anyone have an constructive thoughts? comments? Or just rant along with me?

Comments

[marshmallow.livejournal.com]

I have always refused to like something just for being popular, and I'm equally adamant to not dislike (yowsa double negative) for the same reason, and at the end of the article, it seems like that's what it boils down to -- why would students read popular fiction rather than something "challenging, annoying, offensive"?

To which, a) since when does one book or genre automatically negate any or all others anyways? On my bedstand right now, I have L.J. Smith, Kim Harrison, Ian McEwan, and Jane Austen. I love my Stephen King every bit as much as I love my James Joyce. And b) as you've pointed out, it's pleasure reading. No one claims they were particularly well-written (even Stephenie Meyer doesn't claim that). I think they were a good story, and I enjoyed them well enough.. they set out to be fun, and succeeded. But more importantly than that, they captured the imagination of so many people, of all ages and cultural backgrounds.. it's just flat out dismissive and insulting to chalk a phenomenon like that up to "dim reading" habits.

[orangerful.livejournal.com]

EXACTLY! Sometimes I want filet mignon, sometimes I want Chipotle, and other times I can only fit in a few Chicken McNuggets. This guy shouldn't say that I'm a bad person because he caught me eating McNuggets today! THEY TASTED GOOD!!! I appreciated them for what they were - salty, totally unhealthy, but filling for the time being.

OMG I'VE LOST CONTROL OF THIS METAPHOR!!!!!!

Also, that line about Stephen King in the article was just cruel - he's held in pretty high esteem now and I'm sure in 30-40 years he will be included in English classes! And for GOD SAKES AT LEAST THEY ARE READING!

[faeriesfolly.livejournal.com]

Oh whatever. The author needs to get over himself.
Plus he should write about what he knows instead of things he clearly doesn't understand. Grrrr.
Having started reading those classics in middle school (I know, I know), I know how important it is for kids to read not only 'classics', but also books they choose. Books that pique their interest. Reading for pleasure promotes reading in general! If you enjoy reading, you're more likely to read.

People like that need a good strong smack in the mouth.

[jellibean.livejournal.com]

I agree with all of this and would like to add that I also hate people who only see movies they don't think are "mainstream" and look down on people who enjoys watching explosions sometimes.

Of course, I'm a nerd who reads non-fiction Military History for pleasure sometimes... I wonder if this person would be mad b/c I'm still not reading the CLASSICS. And I wonder how he feels about Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. ^_^

[bittertwee.livejournal.com]

Where do I start? First off, this entire article isn't exactly an advertisement for great (or even persuasive) writing. He cares more about subversive literature than great literature, and he's kind of missing the larger point that the 60s are over. So he's upset because college kids aren't reading Abbie Hoffman, Anais Nin and "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"? Really? Dude, different generation, different concerns. The radical stuff from the 50s and 60s is interesting for historical reasons, but much of it isn't relevant to today's college kids. And some of it is downright embarrassing. I mean, who cares if they aren't reading Anais Nin- they can get better porn online now. That's like me calling middleschool kids tame because they aren't reading Judy Blume, and missing the far racier stuff they are reading. This guy's just out of touch.

Also, he's calling these kids apathetic, yet totally ignores the fact that sharing the college bestseller list with Twilight are books about Obama. Oops.

And this: "argues that "the entire culture has become narcotized." Narcotized? As opposed to kids in the 60s? Mmm-hmm.

"Today's graduate students were born when Ronald Reagan was elected, and their literary values, he claims, reflect our market economy." Yeah, and these students are the kids of boomers, who after reading all that radical stuff went on to settle down, have kids, vote Reagan into office and usher in the materialistic 80s. So what good did any of that radical reading do? Clearly it was just a stupid phase- they may as well have been reading Twilight.

"There's much more an emphasis now on kids thinking of themselves as kids, even into their early to mid-20s," Shocking! Dude, try late 30s or even older. There was a cover story in New York magazine about this a few years back. Another trend you're behind on.

"But in the '60s, they thought of themselves as agents of historical change. The sit-ins, the civil rights movement, the possibility of being drafted focused the mind. The contagion of protest made everyone think of themselves as possible demonstrators." Oh please. It was about drugs and sex for 90 percent of them.

"I don't know that there is a fiction writer out there right now who speaks to this generation's political ambitions. We're still waiting for our Kerouac." Did Kerouac address political ambitions? I thought he wrote about a sex and drug fueled road trip.

"What you see at the next revolution is far more likely to be a well-designed Web site than a radical novel or a poem. Not to be a drag, but that's so uncool." The author offers not one reason why this would be a bad thing. He doesn't even try. Not to be a drag but that's so.. well, it's just lazy writing. You know, like in those books he doesn't want kids reading.

Ok, that was fun.

[orangerful.livejournal.com]

Daaaaaaaaaaamn, you GO girl! *does 3 snaps* I'm going to post more inflammatory articles more often, if only to make you come out of hiding. You know your snark lol!

I totally agree with the lack of relevance issue. And speaking of the 60s, he's totally got on the rose-colored glasses. This myth that every single college student in the United States was involved with the civil rights movement is just ridiculous.

And kids that were raised in the 1980s had the DARE program and "Just Say No" so we've been told not to go NEAR all those drugs that apparently make college soooooooo much better.

He's probably just bitter because Washington Post Book World is no longer a printed supplement...so all he has is a mediocre web site.

[destertale.livejournal.com]

"...fervent chastity of Bella Swan..." Ummm... I don't think this person actually read the books? o_O; Just sayin'.

[orangerful.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure he didn't either...actually, he's probably a closet fan! This whole article is a beard to cover up for the fact that he loves RPatz! hahahhaha.