Are the teenagers still reading books?
-
- Posts: 148
- Joined: 07 Jul 2010, 18:52
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Are the teenagers still reading books?
- oloroso36
- Posts: 74
- Joined: 19 Jul 2010, 09:01
- Bookshelf Size: 0
So I'm hopeful that teens are still reading.
-
- Posts: 193
- Joined: 05 May 2010, 07:40
- Bookshelf Size: 0
-
- Posts: 51
- Joined: 13 Aug 2008, 14:41
- Bookshelf Size: 0
- Hikkomijian
- Posts: 85
- Joined: 09 Jul 2010, 16:40
- Bookshelf Size: 0
-
- Posts: 67
- Joined: 07 Jun 2010, 10:48
- Bookshelf Size: 0
No, teenagers read books; they stop when they turn 18.Alexa12345 wrote:Because now is said that they don't, because of the Inernet. Did the taste for a book dissapeared?
See here's how it works:
First, you make the student read a book.
Then you make them write a report.
Then you make the student read another book.
Write another report.
Read a third book.
Take them to portable book stores instead of feeding them lunch.
Write more reports.
Now tell them they have to independently read two books during their weeks off over the summer.
Write another book report.
Now repeat this about 8-10 times, until they graduate. Dictate most of the books they're supposed to read. When they're allowed to chose one, give them a list of about 20 approved books.
Catcher in the Rye was a good book; it didn't interest me, I wouldn't read it if I had to suffer through it again.
Tale of Two Cities was garbage. I didn't read it. I faked my tests, wrote random answers. The teacher let us ask 10 questions before each test, and if we asked a test question we got to keep the answer she gave; I cheated, used subtle psychic abilities to get 6-8 questions answered that way and intuited the rest.
Lord of the Rings... Tolkien is a crap writer. I respect Donaldson for his command of the language; I respect Chadbourn for his command of the language; I respect Rowling for her ability to write on a lower reading level, yet write well enough to not be mind-numbing tripe that confirms the author was drooling all over herself when she wrote it (both in the breadth of vocabulary and in its effective use). Tolkien is too dry. I finished half the book and gave up.
To Kill a Mockingbird... often attacked because it uses the word "******" too many times. I disagree with censoring the story. I disagree with reading it too, because it's too god damn boring.
Tom Sawyer, too god damn boring.
Huck Finn, too god damn boring.
Animal Farm, too infantile and abstract.
Lord of the Flies, not particularly exciting... and we had to read that in 3 different grade levels!
This is the sh*t they wanted us to read, they made us read, they forced us to read. No, we didn't read Wells. No, we didn't read truly great Orwell like 1984. No, we didn't read obscure fantasy or Sci-Fi like Donaldson, or Anne McAffrey, or Heinlein. We read a few classic Mark Twain selections... Lord of the Rings... Lord of the Flies... you know, the standard selection.
I've checked out a few of the lists for Summer Reading 2010, they include mostly "Classic fiction" and non-fiction; although middle school lists seem to tend towards having a lot of political books (like an Al Gore book about how we can stop global warming). Cat's Cradle (the only scifi I've seen on any) I have to read some time. I know how it goes, though it doesn't seem particularly interesting to me. There's a piece of knowledge there I need to fill out is all; actually I was reflecting on it this morning.
So mainly pure garbage; just reading the descriptions of most of these books makes me cringe.
Is it any wonder I didn't start reading until 2 months ago? Never mind that I strongly value other forms of story telling that falls out of political favor (I like deep-story video games.. Sigma Star Saga, Final Fantasy Tactics, Xenosaga, Tales of Symphonia... hell, Tales of anything, they're all deep-story ... some of the Final Fantasy games have a really deep story, some more near-miss). Hell, Babylon 5 and Enterprise struck me as good stories (Enterprise was more favored by me for its implementation; Babylon 5 tried to stick more to the American failure of packing full conflict-resolution cycles into half an hour).
Teenagers are reading books and they shouldn't be. Once they escape the evil mommy of the public school system, they'll be so glad about not having broccoli manually shoved down their throats that they'll never touch the stuff again.
-
- Posts: 2049
- Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 01:46
- Favorite Book: Wuthering Heights
- Bookshelf Size: 0
As for the actual question, as far as i can tell, thankfully, they are still reading.
- oloroso36
- Posts: 74
- Joined: 19 Jul 2010, 09:01
- Bookshelf Size: 0
-
- Posts: 98
- Joined: 01 May 2010, 02:53
- Bookshelf Size: 0
As for bluefoxicy, people like you are sadly the product of the schooling system. Not your fault though. Blame the schools, though, not the books. I myself HATED churning out those book reports and I must admit it made reading a chore. Which was why I dropped English Literature during the last year of school - and I can say I don't regret it one bit. Ahhhh...now I can actually read and ENJOY books instead of having to dissect them to death and have someone else judge my opinion on them, also, it's okay not to like some of them, but it's also okay to LOVE some of them. So bluefoxicy, why don't you leave the past behind and open your heart to some of those books? Maybe you will too.
- TIGERSPRITE
- Posts: 49
- Joined: 10 Jun 2010, 04:42
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Teenagers DO read.
- Hikkomijian
- Posts: 85
- Joined: 09 Jul 2010, 16:40
- Bookshelf Size: 0
I often consider that I waist my time on some books, which I have to read, some of them are worth reading, but others should be only for interested people.
If we're talking about the school, for me the biggest absurd is to make students to consider someone's view.
In one of Gombrowicz books - "Ferdydurke" is this line:
"teacher: Today, explain and make clear to student why Slowacki rouses a adoration and a admiration in us. Why we cry with him reading his poems [...] Why? Thus, because Slowacki was a great poet. Walkiewicz, why?[..]
Walkiewicz: Because Slowacki was a great poet.
[...]
Teacher:Yes. [...]We love Slowacki because he was great poet.[...]
Galkiewicz:But i don't adore his poems at all. It doesn't amuse me, I can't read more than two lines. God, save me, how can it excite me when it doesn't.[...]
Teacher:How can it not excite you, when I explained, it does excite you."
Probable many teenagers don't like read books because of compulsory readings.
- smellymonkey
- Posts: 126
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 08:48
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Despite this studying literature in school enables people who are interested in reading the advantage of reading and discussing books that they may have not previously had thought about, for example how many people would have had the opportunity to read and appreciate Shakespeare if it had not been compulsory at school. And as for teenagers not reading although i would have to disagree with that statement i do believe that a large proportion become disinterested in reading at this time in there lives especially in our current society when there is a vast variety of activities that could easy be preferred. I was a big reader as a child and loss interest in my teens but in the last few years (i am now 19) have rediscovered my passion for literature.
Sorry my post was so long, hope it was some interest to someone!!
-
- Posts: 193
- Joined: 05 May 2010, 07:40
- Bookshelf Size: 0
-
- Posts: 2049
- Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 01:46
- Favorite Book: Wuthering Heights
- Bookshelf Size: 0