"...at least it gets them reading" Is that a good thing?

[Masha du Toit]

I've been trawling the KB archives of threads on popular books, and I'm struck by the number of times somebody will say - "OK, its a rotten book, but at least it gets the kids reading."

But...is reading a valuable activity all on its own, no matter what you are reading?  Or is the idea that books like these are like "gateway drugs" - will read the user to reading other, better books?  And - does it actually work that way? 

[mooshie78]

Two thoughts.

1.  Quality is subjective.  One person's trash book is another's treasure.

2.  Yes, reading in itself is inherently good.  It will help improve verbal IQ and the more a kid reads the more likely they are to learn to love it and thus be more likely to keep reading into adulthood.  Even if one is just reading popular fiction, it's better than nothing.  And the more people read the more likely they'll get into literature, reading non-fiction, reading newspapers and staying more informed etc.

[Masha du Toit]

Now you see, this is the thing.  Is there really a hierarchy with "popular fiction" at the bottom and "literature" at the top?  And is value really completely subjective?

My take on it (at the moment) is that its a good idea to read rotten books as well as great books, as you get to build up your won idea of quality.  But I'm not sure that a diet of pulp will naturally turn into a hunger for more refined foods!

[mooshie78]

Yeah, I regret using that distinction now.  

I'm not a fan of ever trying to "objectively" rank the merits of books.  Frankly, I don't really give a rat's *ss what someone else thinks about books, movies, music etc. that I enjoy, nor do I really give a crap what they enjoy and spend their time on.

As a whole, I just see value in reading in terms of enhancing verbal IQ, improving vocabulary and just in general developing intellect.  If someone just reads popular fiction, maybe they get less of that since the prose is written at a lower level in terms of vocabulary etc. on average probably.

But going down that road, I'd say non-fiction is probably better in terms of developing intellect since you're gaining real, factual knowledge and thinking about real life issues etc.

I view fiction (be it books, movies etc.) more as just things to be consumed for entertainment purposes primarily, with some added benefits of maybe also aiding vocabulary, critical thinking skills etc. along the way.   Where as non-fiction is more to be read specifically to learn about something.

But in short, I'd never insult someone for what they're reading as I really don't care what others read and I do think that reading period has some intrinsic value.  At the same time, I think some go too far to the bookworm extreme and thus don't expose themselves enough to other arts/medias like movies, music, TV, visual art etc.  Too much of anything is a bad thing IMO.  Best to be well rounded.

[QuantumIguana]

Reading ANYTHING is better than reading nothing. There is a myth that kids used to all read the classics, and that now they instead read crap. It's not true and never was. The classics were read, but so was a lot of, well, crap. A lot. Look up "Penny Dreadfuls". The thing is, we've forgotten about the crap, and look at the pat with rose-colored glasses, remembering only the classics.

The thing is, it's hard to tell crap from classic. Some of our most beloved classics were considered crap. Jules Verne and H.G. Wells were considered crap. Now they are classics. Reading the "crap" doesn't guarantee that they will read better works. But not reading at all pretty much guarantees that they won't read in the future.

[QuantumIguana]

Fiction is as important as non-fiction. You can get as much exploration of ideas from fiction as you can get from non-fiction.

[mooshie78]

Fiction is as important as non-fiction. You can get as much exploration of ideas from fiction as you can get from non-fiction.

Agree in terms of ideas, vocabulary/verbal IQ, critical thinking skills etc.  I was more just saying non-fiction has all those things, plus the advantage of also learning factual knowledge.  So it's easier to see an objective benefit in say a non-fiction history book than in fiction where you get the "trash or literature" arguments.

Nothing against fiction here.  I mostly read fiction in my leisure reading as it's hard to get motivated to tackle non-fiction since I spend so much time at work reading and writing research articles etc.

[jherrick]

One benefit in reading anything is the reader becomes exposed to both good and bad writing. The positive aspect is, as they become exposed to both, they'll begin to recognize the differences between the two. At that point, they might begin to draw their own lines of preference. Kind of like other life experiences: "This behavior rendered a good result; I'll continue it. This other behavior brought a negative consequence, so I'll avoid it in the future."

Though I have to admit, sometimes if I'm seeking to escape with a good read, I'll read a book that I know isn't very good but is easy to relax with. 

[history_lover]

Two thoughts.

1.  Quality is subjective.  One person's trash book is another's treasure.

2.  Yes, reading in itself is inherently good.  It will help improve verbal IQ and the more a kid reads the more likely they are to learn to love it and thus be more likely to keep reading into adulthood.  Even if one is just reading popular fiction, it's better than nothing.  And the more people read the more likely they'll get into literature, reading non-fiction, reading newspapers and staying more informed etc.

ITA - reading is also supposed to be beneficial for the elderly and help prevent/delay the risk/onset of dementia and Alzheimer's because it keeps the brain active and healthy. Doesn't matter what you're reading, it uses much more of the brain than something like watching TV. My elderly MIL mostly reads "trashy" romance novels (and I put trashy in quotes because like you say, quality is subjective) but if she weren't reading she'd just be sitting in front of the TV all day (which is already what she's doing if she's not reading - she's not able to walk very well anymore so her options are limited). I'm not quite sure she's as sharp as she used to be so part of me thinks reading is the only thing preventing her from "losing it" completely. So yeah, doesn't matter what she's reading as long as she's reading.

[Quillhill]

I think it depends on what the goal is. Reading to exercise one's reading muscle is good. The writing doesn't have to be. The child will learn to read, but will "bad" writing teach the child to be a "bad" writer? I agree it is also helpful for the child to be able to distinguish between "good" and "bad" writing, or what one "likes" and "dislikes". However, if the first book a child reads is awful, how likely will that child be to pick up another book? Will the child feel rewarded for reading? Or will the child rather sit down in front of a movie, or a video game because of that "bad" book? For that reason, I think it would be a better idea for the child to read a "good" book, or several, to get started.

[mooshie78]

The child will learn to read, but will "bad" writing teach the child to be a "bad" writer?

Well even most "bad" books are generally ok in terms of grammar, spelling etc.  People just think they're cliche or have plot holes etc.

So I think that point is pretty moot.  Very, very few people go on to be creative writers, so even reading "bad" books they should still mostly be seeing fine grammar and sentence structure etc. which is applicable to writing school essays, office memos etc.

However, if the first book a child reads is awful, how likely will that child be to pick up another book? Will the child feel rewarded for reading?

I think here we're more talking about reading a book one enjoys, but that isn't regarded as quality literature.  i.e. some young adult fantasy series that some snooty literature buff thinks is garbage.  Not saying kids reading a crappy book they don't enjoy.

[Quillhill]

If the reader thinks the book is good, who is to say it isn't? Read on!

[mooshie78]

If the reader thinks the book is good, who is to say it isn't? Read on!

Exactly!

[kCopeseeley]

YES!  Although, as a parent, I will be sure to read alongside, to make sure there's nothing too crazy in the books my kid's read.

Both of my brother's were NON-readers until they met Harry Potter.  Now they read voraciously.  Sure, most people wouldn't consider Harry Potter a bad read, but even if it had been a series I wasn't keen on, like the Bartimaeous Trilogy, I would have been thrilled if they kept reading afterward.

Just my take.

[jabeard]

I fully support kids reading whatever (with some supervision depending on certain themes and what not). Given how hard it is to get the average adult to read nowadays, I'm dubious of limiting kids' reading choices too much based on subjective quality assessments. I'm big into parental guidance to discuss the implications of material in the books and what not, though.

[mom133d (aka Liz)]

I'm with the anything is better than nothing group. I was working in the library when the 4th Harry Potter came out. Since I worked in the computer lab, and really don't stay on top of children's lit, I'd never heard of the series. All of a sudden I'm seeing news article after news article about kids fighting to get a copy of the book. And its a big book! I had to check out what was getting kids so interested in reading again.
Are they all still reading? Who knows. But many of the kids I met at that time would ask for other books to read when Harry was checked out or they'd finished it. Same when I worked circulation at a different library - and all the HP novels had been out for a while. Its a great feeling to get kids interested in books.

[Grady Hendrix]

I once got in a huge argument at a party with someone who was talking about the Harry Potter books and said, "It's so great that kids read these. They're long and at least they're reading." At which point I said, "So you'd be cool with kids reading Mein Kampf? I mean, that's long, too." At which point she threw her glass of wine on me and stormed off. Wasn't much of an argument, come to think of it.

I think it's really important that kids read. It's an important habit to develop and I was a kid who read comic books, magazines, serious fiction, sci fi, encyclopedias, horror and pretty much anything printed between two covers, Penthouse Forum included. I've grown up into someone who reads a wide range of stuff and I think of myself as A Reader.

But there's a really interesting question underneath all this:

Is the act of reading "good" or is it the content of what we read that's "good?"

Look at South Carolina where the ACLU is suing a prison which has banned all reading material except for the Bible. Leave aside all the arguments about access to legal materials, and look at what the prison is saying here. They believe that reading the content of the Bible will make the readers more Christian. By that logic, if they gave the prisoners Das Kapital, they would turn them all into Marxists.

At the same time, is a 20 year old kid reading white power fantasy The Turner Diaries getting more objective "good" out of that than a 20 year old kid not reading at all?

It's a weird question and I'm really curious to hear what people think.

[JRTomlin]

I agree that reading is inherently good and that reading, even of something I consider "trash", will increase the likelihood of someone having the ability to read beyond that.

Were the first novels I read (Nancy Drew, I suspect) particularly worthy examples of the novelist's art? Well, they're remembered with fondness by a lot of women, but they aren't great novels. But I soon took off reading Dumas, Hugo, et al.

So... yes, I do buy the "it gets them reading" mantra to some extent at least.

[mooshie78]

I once got in a huge argument at a party with someone who was talking about the Harry Potter books and said, "It's so great that kids read these. They're long and at least they're reading." At which point I said, "So you'd be cool with kids reading Mein Kampf? I mean, that's long, too." At which point she threw her glass of wine on me and stormed off. Wasn't much of an argument, come to think of it.

I think it's really important that kids read. It's an important habit to develop and I was a kid who read comic books, magazines, serious fiction, sci fi, encyclopedias, horror and pretty much anything printed between two covers, Penthouse Forum included. I've grown up into someone who reads a wide range of stuff and I think of myself as A Reader.

But there's a really interesting question underneath all this:

Is the act of reading "good" or is it the content of what we read that's "good?"

Look at South Carolina where the ACLU is suing a prison which has banned all reading material except for the Bible. Leave aside all the arguments about access to legal materials, and look at what the prison is saying here. They believe that reading the content of the Bible will make the readers more Christian. By that logic, if they gave the prisoners Das Kapital, they would turn them all into Marxists.

At the same time, is a 20 year old kid reading white power fantasy The Turner Diaries getting more objective "good" out of that than a 20 year old kid not reading at all?

It's a weird question and I'm really curious to hear what people think.

You're confounding a few things there.

The act of reading itself is good.  But that doesn't mean that there aren't books that kids shouldn't be reading.  So there are exceptions as you don't want kids reading erotica or Mein Kampf most likely.

At the same time, the benefits of the act of reading is limited if a person has very limited access to books and can only read the Bible in prison etc.

But none of that changes that the act of reading is inherently good for the brain and will help build a person's verbal IQ, vocabulary etc.  Nor that a kid who reads Harry Potter is more likely to continue reading for leisure than a kid who never reads anything other than what they're forced to read for school.  Not every kid who reads something like Harry Potter will go on to become an avid reader, but they're more likely to than those who never read for leisure.

The issue of whether some books can be harmful by spreading hateful ideas etc. is an important one. Such material can no doubt do harm, and maybe a person would be better off if they ONLY read that kind of stuff.  

So that's a fair point I suppose.  It's just a bit outside the thread topic as we're more discussing whether reading popular fiction is beneficial.  And I think unequivocally it is.  It will build verbal IQ and vocabulary and increase they odds that a person gains a love of reading and branches out into non-fiction, classics and generally into reading to expand one's mind rather than solely for entertainment.

I think most would agree reading is good for kids, and also agree that there are certain books that aren't appropriate for kids.

[Masha du Toit]

Are they all still reading? Who knows. But many of the kids I met at that time would ask for other books to read when Harry was checked out or they'd finished it. Same when I worked circulation at a different library - and all the HP novels had been out for a while. Its a great feeling to get kids interested in books.

That is more convincing to me than "anything is better than nothing"

Many of the books I read as a kid (hell, many of the books I read now!) were pretty poor - but I was a bookworm, and I was taught to read critically.  The end result is that I developed a sense for WHY something is poor, and not just reading certain books because other people told me they were "good".


The reason I asked this question in the first place is because sometimes (not always!) I think people say this because they dont really feel comfortable defending their own beliefs in why a book is poor quality.  Not wanting to deal with the thorny issues about taste, context etc, they just say "Well, I thought it was rubbish, but at least they are reading!"

If you really believe it is rubbish, is reading it any better than any number of other activities?

I'm so hooked on reading that if I dont have a book I grab a shampoo bottle and read the label (not exaggerating!) but I'm still not sure if reading is in an of itself good, no matter what you are reading. 

[mooshie78]

That is more convincing to me than "anything is better than nothing"

If you really want to get into it, go look up some academic studies on reading.  It's not my field, so I'm far from an expert.  But from friends/colleagues that work in that area, there's a lot of research showing that reading period is good for the brain, increases verbal IQ, vocabulary etc.  Helps stave off Alzheimer's and memory loss in old age as the other poster noted etc.  I'm pretty sure a friend mentioned there were studies showing that kid who read simple fiction in the summer returned to school performing better on reading comprehension tests than kids who didn't read over the summer as well.

[balaspa]

This sounds like the same dilemma that my parents ran into when I was a kid and all I wanted to read was comic books.  Well, they said, at least he's reading!  Now, I always liked reading books, as well, but there was a time when comics was the thing. 

I do believe that any kind of reading is beneficial.  I encourage youngsters to read older books, if possible because I would like to believe there are still some young people who will want to use correct spellings and grammar.

When I read comics, I discovered that the basis for many of them went back to literature and fiction, whethere it was the Scarlett Pimpernell or pulp fiction like The Shadow and The Spider.  And that, in turn, made me seek out those books to read them. 

I also do not make a distinction between "pop fiction" and literature.  I have a friend who believes that he cannot invest the time it takes him to read a book unless he gets some deep personal, life-changing meaing out of it.  Me, I like to be entertained.  I consider myself a pop fiction writer, as well, and I am not ashamed by that.  My books may not be discussed in literature clases...ever...but if they entertain people for a few hours...I am thrilled!

[mooshie78]

I do believe that any kind of reading is beneficial.  I encourage youngsters to read older books, if possible because I would like to believe there are still some young people who will want to use correct spellings and grammar.

Huh?  Most contemporary books use proper spelling and grammar, with any slang just being dialogue from characters who aren't well educated etc.

Though I'd agree it's beneficial for the vocabulary to read classics and see words that aren't often used anymore.  Though honestly it's of limited utility to learn words that aren't used anymore.

I also do not make a distinction between "pop fiction" and literature.  I have a friend who believes that he cannot invest the time it takes him to read a book unless he gets some deep personal, life-changing meaing out of it.  Me, I like to be entertained. 

Same here.  I do read some Classics, non-fiction etc., just like I also watch some artsy movies, documentaries etc.  But at the end of the day, these are hobbies and most of the time I just want to be entertained.  Being a professor I'm teaching and doing research for a living, so I spend plenty of time sharpening my intellect as is.

[Grady Hendrix]

You're confounding a few things there.

I guess what I was getting at is that if you switch a few of these assumptions around you wind up exposing their weaknesses.

I think reading, anything, is good. Absolutely. And I think while it's great that the Harry Potter books got a lot of kids excited to be reading, I think the bigger benefit (from my point of view) was in making geekdom cool. When I was 12 my interest in sci fi, fantasy, wizards, magic, and all that stuff that's such a big part of HP franchise was a secret. It was shameful. It would get me beaten up. Now, the coolest kids read Harry Potter and books that would have gotten me pantsed in middle school. I think this is HUGE and has really changed the culture.

But the interesting question that pops up is, if we assume reading is good and teaches good habits, does the benefit of the simple act of reading outweigh the negativity of the content if it's offensive, racist, poor quality, etc? Most people seem to agree that reading a poorly written book is better than not reading a book at all. And most studies on it leave this question aside. I'm not sure that it's actually a question that can be answered, really.

[Krista D. Ball]

Agree in terms of ideas, vocabulary/verbal IQ, critical thinking skills etc.  I was more just saying non-fiction has all those things, plus the advantage of also learning factual knowledge.  So it's easier to see an objective benefit in say a non-fiction history book than in fiction where you get the "trash or literature" arguments.

Nothing against fiction here.  I mostly read fiction in my leisure reading as it's hard to get motivated to tackle non-fiction since I spend so much time at work reading and writing research articles etc.

Also, recognize that young male readers sometimes go through phases where they never want to read novels. Instead, they want to read non-fiction fact books. One way that some classrooms are failing young male readers is through the insistence of fiction reading (it's classroom-specific here, since the teachers and school are choosing what's in the reading bins for the younger kids).

My younger step-son hated novels for a long time. Today, there's only still some that he liked. However, give him a book on how to put dinosaur bones back together and you had to fight to get him into bed. We've finally figured out what he liked: urban fantasy and historical fantasy, and horror lite (he's not quite able to handle full horror, but he is just a kid...however, he does want to be scared on occasion).