Literature as a Pleasure Read?

[Halo]

Not to single her out there have been other posters on here and others I have talked to that have said Literature is too much work.

The main way I can imagine people viewing "literature" as hard work is because of the language used. Old-fashioned or archaic words and sentence construction might be more difficult to understand than modern language.

Another problem with older classics could be that you have to have some kind of understanding of the social values of the time the book is written. By this I mean that a book's plot might revolve around something scandalous a character does - something that wouldn't even raise an eyebrow now and might leave readers thinking "What's the big deal? Why did their lives fall apart over that?"

I also think that having been forced to read what is judged worthy "literature" at school puts a lot of people off. You cannot choose the book - it is foisted upon you, whether you find it interesting or not. You then have to analyse every sentence and theme to within an inch of its life. No wonder people decide to read something "easier".

 

[abecedarian]

The main way I can imagine people viewing "literature" as hard work is because of the language used. Old-fashioned or archaic words and sentence construction might be more difficult to understand than modern language.

Another problem with older classics could be that you have to have some kind of understanding of the social values of the time the book is written. By this I mean that a book's plot might revolve around something scandalous a character does - something that wouldn't even raise an eyebrow now and might leave readers thinking "What's the big deal? Why did their lives fall apart over that?"

I also think that having been forced to read what is judged worthy "literature" at school puts a lot of people off. You cannot choose the book - it is foisted upon you, whether you find it interesting or not. You then have to analyse every sentence and theme to within an inch of its life. No wonder people decide to read something "easier".

You're right halo..I think schools are trying to do a good thing in a poor way. This dissection of great works is a horrible way to teach kids to love literature and reading. I'm not saying there isn't a place for this indepth study, but I wonder if the old tried and true methods are so effective. For me, I didn't learn to enjoy "literature" until I was away from school, and was willing to keep a dictionary by my side and take time to investigate a work for myself. I was amazed at how much I loved reading something deep and determining for myself what the writer was saying. Background info is good and helpful, but having the freedom to lay a book aside if I just didn't like it was the greatest incentive to keep trying. Schoolkids usually don't have that freedom, so they develop mental blocks like I did, and cheat themselves of the wisdom of some great authors.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

I always start reading literature for entertainment, but if the book just doesn't appeal to me then it will stop being for entertainment, and purely so that I can say, "Yes, I read that book, I didn't like it, and here's why", without people telling me that I can't judge something I havn't even finished.
I have enjoyed most of the the literature that I have read, however, so I would say that I read literature mostly for entertainment.

 

[Billy]

Well to me, a book is a book. As I said in the other thread, there are some very well written genre fiction books. The fact that they are genre fiction does not make them any less valuable. There are also some very poorly written books that are considered 'literature'.

When I hear the term literature, I tend to think of books that have become classics, such as Animal Farm, Wuthering Heights, Lord of the Rings, Rebecca, Pride and Pejudice, etc.

As for whether I read literature for entertainment and enjoyment, of course I do. If it didn't entertain me I wouldn't read it.

 

[WoundedThorns]

hm, i see that ions mentioned me.

i suppose it also depends on the difficulty of said literature. i read modern literature for pleasure, such as Catcher in the Rye, to Kill a Mockingbird, and The Stranger. the Bell Jar is also considered to be modern literature. i do feel more satisfaction out of a book with meaning and 'in between the lines' messeges. satisfation = pleasure. i spend more time thinking about literature most of the time.
but for instance, i cannot stand reading books such as The Scarlet Letter. the plot interested me and all, but the actual writing just made me fall asleep - literally. i would just space out into different thoughts while reading it. granted, that was about a year and a half ago - it might be different now.

literature can be read for pleasure, but i suppose it just depends on the type of pleasure. entertainment? satisfaction? i didn't feel satisfaction when i finished The Cradle will Fall. i only continued to read it b/c i was curious to find out how the murder got away with murdering the one character and his whole medical schemes... but there was really nothing else to the book. no morals or philosophies or messeges the writer tried to get across.

 

[Kookamoor]

I think the answer to this is also the answer to why some books that should not do well do.

I disagree. Sure, many people read literary works for pleasure, but this doesn't provide the reason why some popular books have a "hook" that draws the greater populace in. I also don't think that a book that is written for universal appeal should "not do well". In many cases it is aimed at a market niche, and I think that many publishers today look for books that fit a marketing niche, rather than books that are stylistically brilliant or have complex themes.

Or is this what you are trying to say? That society today turns away from style and themes and concentrates more on the basic story? I don't see there being anything wrong with that, and it is interesting. But hardly new.

 

[ions]

If it was clearly answered why some do not choose literature as a "pleasure read" we could maybe use that information to infer why other books are chosen. Frankly I believe that there are 3 reasons people do not choose literature as a pleasure read:

1. They can not read at an appropriate level to appreciate literature.
2. They are too lazy to make the effort to appreciate literature.
3. They have poor taste. Let's call this a limited palette.

This is my guess since I've been given little else to formulate other reasons people would not choose to read literature for the pleasure of it. Someone with tact could probably coat those reasons a little better than I could but this is the plain truth to it. I traded my tact for beer. No regrets. I am still not berating anyone for choosing to read fiction that is not literature. People just need to be honest about the choices they make.

This part of the discussion would probably be more appropriate in a thread about genre fiction or blockbuster books. That said, I think popular books are not necessarily written with any "hook" other than being easy to digest and titillating.

 

[Stewart]

The difference can be seen in Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn. The first is an adventure; the second is an allegory on the failure of America's Reconstruction era. Reading Tom Sawyer is a romp. Reading Huck Finn is a deeper experience. There's a place for both.

You can still read Huck Finn as an adventure without worrying about its deeper aspects.

 

[Shade]

I also don't think that a book that is written for universal appeal should "not do well".

I do! In an ideal world (sigh), anything written with cynical money-grubbing aims would be shunned.

In many cases it is aimed at a market niche, and I think that many publishers today look for books that fit a marketing niche, rather than books that are stylistically brilliant or have complex themes.

Well that's business, I guess, but it's still a shame. Am I old-fashioned in thinking books should be written with only one aim in mind: that the writer should do the best (s)he possibly can? No markets in mind, no aim for fame, no eye on the bottom line.

 

[Kookamoor]

I do! In an ideal world (sigh), anything written with cynical money-grubbing aims would be shunned.

And these books *are* shunned by people who care about such things, such as yourself. The fact of the matter is that many in the general populace don't. In an ideal world many money-grubbing schemes would be shunned (can anyone say Walmart?), but the reality of the matter is that we live in an increasingly capitalist society.

Am I old-fashioned in thinking books should be written with only one aim in mind: that the writer should do the best (s)he possibly can? No markets in mind, no aim for fame, no eye on the bottom line.

Not old-fashioned, but perhaps idealistic . I think there are many excellent writers who do operate in this fashion, and they write because they have a keen passion for it. Does it matter that they are sometimes lost in the midst of genre fiction and blockbusters? You find them amidst all that anyway.

Frankly I believe that there are 3 reasons people do not choose literature as a pleasure read:
They can not read at an appropriate level to appreciate literature.
They are too lazy to make the effort to appreciate literature.
They have poor taste. Let's call this a limited palette.

I think you are being too critical. It's like criticising someone who doesn't like whisky because:
1. They do not understand it's subtlety
2. They are too lazy to bother learning to appreciate it
3. They have poor taste

The fact is that some people prefer beer! Beer is more common, more widely known and more accessible. You see ads for beer every day, it's available in large quantities in plain view at the liquor store, people you know drink that brand of beer and you may never have been shown or taught how to drink and appreciate whisky. Is the latter your fault for never having that opportunity? No, I don't think so. Some people don't even like alcohol. Everyone has different tastes annd different interests, and we shouldn't criticise people for that.

What's the bigger issue here that you take issue with, ions? Is it the fact that publishers may overlook a brilliantly written novel of literature in order to publish a genre fiction blockbuster? In that case you ought to consider taking issue with the publishers and the way in which the marketing strategies work. Or take issue with the school system who turn kids away from literature rather than encouraging enjoyment in such books.

 

[Stewart]

The fact is that some people prefer beer!

I like beer, but you've generalised it there. I don't like Budweiser, Becks, Miller, etc. although I will buy beers from around the world because I find them to be of a higher quality. Zywiec, for example.

 

[Kookamoor]

I like beer, but you've generalised it there. I don't like Budweiser, Becks, Miller, etc. although I will buy beers from around the world because I find them to be of a higher quality. Zywiec, for example.

True, perhaps too much of a generalisation. But the point still stands. You go looking for the exotic beers, not the stuff advertised daily and stacked in huge quantities in the beer fridge of your liquor store.

My point is still that some people have never been exposed to literature, or never learned to appreciate it. I don't blame them, as ions appears to want to, but instead feel it has more to do with the advertising strategy and the way in which they were educated about literature in high school. And I also think that some people just don't like it. I don't think this makes them less intelligent, just having different tastes (not "poor taste"). Some people prefer to spend their time analysing movies, or appreciating fine wine, or listening to music. Everyone's different - it's the spice of life, baby.

 

[Zolipara]

My point is still that some people have never been exposed to literature, or never learned to appreciate it. I don't blame them, as ions appears to want to, but instead feel it has more to do with the advertising strategy and the way in which they were educated about literature in high school.

Pretty much everyone has had to read some literature at school. But in school a lot of kids dismiss literature as boring and dont even try to read it. Instead they fake a book report by reading a online review or something similar. Then the same people later rave about the Davinci code as "the bestest book ever!" In other words a large amount of people dismiss literature as boring without even trying. Probably because its regarded as "too dorky" by the "cool kids". If you go to school hating literature before you have actually read anything, its hard for a teacher to change that feeling.

 

[abecedarian]

All this discussion points toward one obvious way to "take back" the value of literature: reading aloud to children from the time they're tiny til they move out on their own. And I don't mean just sticking to The Berenstain Bear type books either. If kids are exposed early and long to great books in a friendly manner, I believe they are much more likely to develop a taste for reading themselves. All those "how to raise a reader" books are full of great ideas to promote a love of books among children.

 

[muggle]

All this discussion points toward one obvious way to "take back" the value of literature: reading aloud to children from the time they're tiny til they move out on their own. And I don't mean just sticking to The Berenstain Bear type books either. If kids are exposed early and long to great books in a friendly manner, I believe they are much more likely to develop a taste for reading themselves. All those "how to raise a reader" books are full of great ideas to promote a love of books among children.

You are absolutely correct IMHO. Reading to kids when they are young is the best way to get them interested and keep them interested in books/literature of all kinds. I have 5 grandaughters, 2 were read to at an early age and 3 were not. The 2 that were read to are now avid readers not to mention top students. Please do not mis-interpet, I love all 5 the same.

 

[ions]

My point is still that some people have never been exposed to literature, or never learned to appreciate it. I don't blame them, as ions appears to want to, but instead feel it has more to do with the advertising strategy and the way in which they were educated about literature in high school. And I also think that some people just don't like it. I don't think this makes them less intelligent, just having different tastes (not "poor taste"). Some people prefer to spend their time analysing movies, or appreciating fine wine, or listening to music. Everyone's different - it's the spice of life, baby.

If someone has never been exposed to finer literature that puts them under the laziness category. Provided they live in a place where there is access to a library, school or even the mighty Internet where you can get to fine literature. Hundreds of classics are available free from Gutenberg. I'm not out to blame anyone of anything just explore the real reasons people choose not to read Literature as pleasure. Again I will say there is no agenda to deride anyone. My agenda is in the title of the thread: Literature as a Pleasure Read? Answer, yes or no, why or why not.

As for the comparison to beer I think Stewart showed that you were generalizing there Kookamoor. I also covered that sort of analogy in my Spoiled by Literature thread. If you're going to compare something compare with members of the same species. Braeburn to Macintosh. Coors Light to Duvel. Brown to Eco. There is little point comparing cavendish to bartlett.

I have a pet peeve with the word "choice". Oh everyone has a choice to like what they want but let's not hide why they make their choices! Some poeple choose widgets of lesser quality because they're easier to get, easier to understand and are in general less work. And that is fine by me! But be honest about it. Keeping with books, if someone decides to read a genre book, we all know the authors so there's no need to name them here again, they should be honest why they chose that book. That could be anything from the prose is easy to digest, it's not very long, I don't have to think, whatever. A choice was made, and everyone is allowed to make them, but be honest with the reasons. Don't hide laziness or ignorance under freedom!

 

[Hugin]

A quick question how many people out there read Literature(on a regular occasion), yet don't enjoy it?

Probably only some scholars and students.

I believe this is very sad. Especially the fact that school going kids have to read truly boring books.

If I wasn't exposed to Charley and the chocolate factory by my 5th grade English teacher I might not have been as avid a reader as I am now.

Don't get me wrong I do believe kids should be taught great books at school, but how about some modern classics? What about *ghasp* a fantasy novel being taught in school?

I have almost sworn off Literature as an enjoyable read, after being force fed boring books in school. Luckily my girlfriend introduced me to some good literature, that was entertaining as well.

I think we get taught that there are two types of books:
1. Books that are fun to read.
2. Literature, books that broaden the mind, but bore you to death.

I believe that there are some Genre books that can also be considered great literature, but are very easily dismissed as just a fantasy/sci-fi/horror etc.

Is a novel set in the future, but is a truly original work of art it should never be dismissed as just a Sci-Fi, at the same time a piece of literature that does not entertain is, to me, pointless.

 

[Zolipara]

2. Literature, books that broaden the mind, but bore you to death.

Did you actually try to read them with an open mind or were you convinced it was boring before you started?

What genre/fantasy book would you consider "great literature"?

 

[Stewart]

What about *ghasp* a fantasy novel being taught in school?

In my school we read The Hobbit and The Day of the Triffids; one fantasy, one sci-fi.

I think we get taught that there are two types of books:
1. Books that are fun to read.
2. Literature, books that broaden the mind, but bore you to death.

Crap!

I thought Foucault's Pendulum fits into your number one; while I bet you'd place it in the number two slot. There are no types of book other than those defined by Wilde: good books and bad books.

I believe that there are some Genre books that can also be considered great literature, but are very easily dismissed as just a fantasy/sci-fi/horror etc.

If you're thinking of Tolkien, forget it.

Is a novel set in the future, but is a truly original work of art it should never be dismissed as just a Sci-Fi, at the same time a piece of literature that does not entertain is, to me, pointless.

Here's one for you; it has sci-fi elements but is literature: Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. It carries an emotional depth I've never seen in any of the, admittedly little, sci-fi/fantasy pieces I've read. And it's, er, good.

 

[muggle]

I like beer, but you've generalised it there. I don't like Budweiser, Becks, Miller, etc. although I will buy beers from around the world because I find them to be of a higher quality. Zywiec, for example.

Comparing "beers from around the world" with budweiser, miller, becks, and especially "etc" is a generalization. Perhaps your preference of Zywiec is due to limited tasting of some excellent beers made in the U.S.