Quote:

---

sweetsophie13 said:
I'm not sure I have as detailed a response - both of these are so well thought-out and say a lot of what I think. But another thing is - are we not only perhaps being branded to authors but perhaps, moreso, genres?

---

I dunno... I think that first and foremost, we read what we like. We find a style, an author, a genre that we like - and stick with it for awhile. I've certainly done it! I read a slew of Dashiell Hammett one year - one after the other. I've done the same with other authors. And while I really like a wide variety of styles and genres, I have a penchant for older books, written pre-WWII.

There are certainly those who jump on the newest bestseller just for the sake of letting people know they've read it, but I do think that many more read simply for the enjoyment.

--------------------
Tim...
HB's B
http://www.timandvictor.com

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Arras said:
It's also worth noting that "bestsellers" have so-called "water cooler appeal"--by reading what so many other people are apparently reading, you maintain an important social connection. It gives you a shared experience to talk about with friends, co-workers, and even total strangers on web forums like this one. Books like the Harry Potter series or The DaVinci Code end up becoming cultural "touchstones" with which you can identify a generation of readers--the books, movies, and TV shows that most people of a certain era have been exposed to. The popular culture of the next decade will certainly make use of that, as "in-jokes," satires, and references to these works become more common, safe in the knowledge that the vast majority of the intended audience will "get" the allusions.

Some people turn to the bestseller lists expressly to find out what "the rest of their peers" are reading, so as not to be left out of the social conversation. If they see a book that has been on the list for, say, 10+ weeks, they may well want to read that book just to stay connected to their peers (other readers of that genre), or perhaps their generation. Not doing so risks leaving them feeling "left out," and "out of touch" with their peers. Some may have the more practical worry that they'll have nothing to say or comment on when they get together with friends, or at parties. Shared social experiences are key to feelings of "belonging" to a peer group, and if you don't do your share to keep up with what the culture is reading/watching, you risk feeling marginalized or alienated.

---

I this is a great point too - water-cooler appeal. Of course that's part of how people build a brand I guess - make it a hot topic so that when people are talking about tissues -they think kleenex since that's what their peers use and what is popular. But- I still think at the end of the day, the books people choose to read on a regular basis are based simply on what they like and enjoy - that's what will bring them back. They might read something at the watercooler to fit in but that doesn't mean they'll go back to it (or the author, or genre, per se).

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Dazzle said:
I've never read any Harry Potter book and I certainly won't be reading any more Dan Brown. The former because I am not one of the children for whom the book was written

---

To my mind a person becomes an adult when he/she doesn’t restrict himself/herself in playing the fool sometimes. Of course, it is one of many indications. It isn’t the main one.

A person may read Harry Potter and then read Bernard Shaw’s plays or something of that kind.
A person may watch animated cartoons and then turn to Lawrence of Arabia, for instance.
It is important not to be childish in everyday life. But why don’t we use fairytales and cartoons to enjoy?

Andrey Kurayev said interesting words in a television broadcast. He said he didn’t trust J.K. Rowling when she had said Harry and his friends would grow up along with the readers. Then Andrey Kurayev recognized he had mistaken.
He said there were many psychological aspects in the books, especially in the Order of the Phoenix (the television broadcast went on the air before the appearance of The Half-Blood Prince). He believes Harry Potter books are very good example of literature for teenagers.
The most interesting thing is who Andrey Kurayev is. He is an Othodox deacon. So, Harry Potter has some defenders among the clergy.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Cornflower said:

Quote:

---

Dazzle said:
I've never read any Harry Potter book and I certainly won't be reading any more Dan Brown. The former because I am not one of the children for whom the book was written

---

To my mind a person becomes an adult when he/she doesn’t restrict himself/herself in playing the fool sometimes.

---

I think too many of us miss the point when we try to classify something as being "for children", or "for women", or "for old people", and so on. We'll talk about a book or a film or television program in light of its "target audience", but there should be no shame in enjoying these things just because we don't happen to be members of that intended market. And yet too often we do precisely that--we question a man's masculinity if he enjoys a "chick-flick", we call him "childish" if he enjoys a children's movie. Ironically, when we do that, we are the ones being juvenile, ignorant, and prejudicial.

Speaking as someone who grew up far too quickly, I can attest to the fact that there are adults out there who denied themselves the full enjoyment of their youth in order to reach "maturity" as quickly as possible. Looking back, I wish I had allowed myself to be a child more often; today I have to work at it, to cultivate a sense of "childlikeness" (as opposed to childishness) in order to keep myself young in mind and spirit, if not in body.

In my case, that often means engaging my mind with outside-the-box ideas--fantasy and science-fiction mainly--that challenge my sober, rational understanding of life, the universe, and everything. Whether I believe in magic or fairytale creatures or alien beings or not is irrelevant; suspension of disbelief is my duty when I visit the internally-consistent worlds that storytellers create. In that sense I can be a child again, filled with wonder at the implications and possibilities of a world whose rules I'm just beginning to understand.

That's the appeal of things like Harry Potter, I think, to many adults. It's an escape from the world we know, to one where we can check our preconceived "adult" notions of the world at the door and explore it through the fresh eyes of young characters who haven't yet become so jaded that they think they know it all.

There are a lot of worthwhile stories out there, if we're willing to look past our prejudices to find them. "A good story well told" is what we're after, after all, and it shouldn't matter whether that story was written in prose aimed at 8th-graders or with lit-fic postdocs in mind. But bury a good story in language that makes it inaccessible to huge segments of the population and all you do is limit its appeal to an elite community of intellectuals, which in turn limits its exposure to discussion and criticism. Writers typically want to reach as many minds as possible with their ideas, and telling a story well means making it interesting and engaging to as many minds as you can reach. To fault J.K. Rowling for not forcing her young readers to look up six-syllable words last used in Chaucer's day is just silly. (Though as a footnote to that, the Harry Potter books do offer readers a rudimentary introduction to Latin, in the guise of the language of spellcraft.)

The best of these stories often have layers of meaning to them as well, such that adults will find more depth in them than younger readers will, making them all the more rewarding to re-read years later when their secrets reveal themselves. Even cartoons are often layered with political humour, in-jokes that only adults are likely to get, or parodies of classic stories that adults will recognize, even if the children watching are seeing them for the first time. Shows like Animaniacs and Pinky and the Brain were particularly clever in the use of this tactic--the writing is best appreciated by adults, in fact, not children.

In short, let me urge people to seek out good stories wherever they can be found, regardless of any perceived "target audience." An open mind will lead you down more varied and interesting roads than you'll ever travel if you let tunnel-vision guide you.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Arras said:
The best of these stories often have layers of meaning...

---

I agree with that some stories have layers. Children and adults interpret them in different ways. It isn’t harmful if the story is told correctly. Reference to a “targeting audience” gives us guidance in the diversity of stories. But it shouldn’t limit our interests, imagination and healthy desire for enjoying.
And nevertheless there is one tendency I don’t like. Children are stopping being children. People of the full legal age are often not adults. Modern cartoons often are made not for children. Shrek was good for adults and wasn’t so good for children. Shrek-2 was not for children. Some people agree with me.
Did you see Monster House? It is a monster movie. Yes, I laughed several times. A movie like that isn’t harmful for me. But in the next row were sitting three boys of eight years old or so. What did they learn from it? Whatever you may say, cartoons form the model of behaviour. And people who create cartoons, movies and books for children must remember it.
Some parents don’t allow their children to watch Jetix cartoon.
Of course, our life is changing and we need new characters and new ideas. But why does the distinction between children and adults eliminate? So should not be.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Sephia said:
I am somewhat older than the HP target audience.

---

I saw a slogan in some big bookshops. According to the slogan Harry Potter books are “the books for children from eight to eighty years old”.

Post Extras: