Comments on: New Moon

By: R3D RJ

R3D RJ — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:06:12 +0000

Then lets all watch all episodes of old STAR TREK and turn into gnarling and whining nerds! XD

Joke only!

By: Phoebe

Phoebe — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:30:26 +0000

Kent: I’ve read worse (possible ‘influence’)books during my teens. Sweet Valley High and VC Andrews come to mind. All the plotting and backstabbing and even sabotaging in SVH make Edward and Jacob look like saints. And looking at what’s available right now is pure pleasure. there’s so many more genres available geared towards younger readers, and it’s all different and a good read for parents as well as their kids. That’s the key, I think. if the parents are so concerned, they should read the books too.

By: Jiro Maeda

Jiro Maeda — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:41:33 +0000

If you want pop fiction that bridges with literature guys, might I suggest the two latest errr creations (just like Frankenstein the monster itself was a creation) Sense and Sensibility and Seamonsters plus Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

By: Kent Vonce

Kent Vonce — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:24:54 +0000

@Kevin: Great. Now I lost my argument. No worries though. You voiced some of my answers anyway.

@Phoebe: You’re right, it is not an obligation of the writer. And that one person could stil affect those around them. What I’m worried about, is the trend following. Should more books similar to Twilight come out, what would happen then? In the same way, the spread might be the same, or even faster.

A movie showed the possibility of a futuristic America broken down by an unfocused education causing reading to be done only by “Gays.” It’s an exaggeration but a possibility is similar.

I’m not saying that Twilight is a dumb book, just that, it might not carry the right things for the age group it targets. We can all appreciate romance and especially with a hint of fantasy.

By: Phoebe

Phoebe — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:07:42 +0000

Kevin: it depends on your definition of literature, I suppose, but I think Twilight is pop fiction rather than literature. Pointing readers towards the classics isn’t really an author’s obligation, it’s just something extra a reader might be interested in. It’s not the author’s job to educate the reader on literature, that’s the reader’s choice. if only one reader in a million follow through, that’s still one reader more who has learned to enjoy something they ordinarily wouldn’t have even tried. You probably already know that some classics like Alexandre Dumas’ Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo were considered pop fiction during the author’s lifetime.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 08:20:10 +0000

Haha! I guess. Beowulf was one tough cookie for me.

A part is not a whole. For Twilight, the indealization seems to be the majority of it, even the central machine that runs the story. Or maybe I’m exaggerating.

They discover, you say. but what then? How many out of a hundred who discover the books will bother to read through them? And how many out of a hundred who read through them learn to appreaciate the finer qualities of literature?

And I may be mistaken here but are you implying that Twilight is a piece of literature?

By: Phoebe

Phoebe — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:56:54 +0000

Kent: idealization has always been part of literature. not until Shrek has Prince Charming and the Fairy Godmother become any less than ideal. And even if only 1 in a hundred pursue the references as far as to scan the synopses of the classics, that makes, what, approximately ten thousand more out of a million who discover the older books. Classic books aren’t as easy to dive into as those written in the present mostly because it’s harder to relate to the references and way of life of the time period. I’m an avid reader, but I still have a hard time slogging through any book written over a hundred years ago.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:25:15 +0000

Huh, I suppose, since the definition does kind of say that…

It’d be funny if there was a guy with a card with “GAR” written on it and Bryan starts to go gay around the guy. LOLZ.

By: Kent Vonce

Kent Vonce — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:16:11 +0000

Sure, Phoebe, but that’s just it, with all the idealization, people become complete idealists. Being optimistic isn’t bad, neither is being realistic. But if you take too much of either, you make mistakes.

I give on the Archie comics part, you got me.

References work only when fanatics research them. As a Fate/Stay Night Fan, I’ve immersed myself in the series and game long enough and began researching the out-of-game facts. So I learned about King Arthur and such. But as stated previously, it’s already hard enough to get people to read, reading Twilight may move some people but how sure are you that a large number will start reading Anne of Green Gables, or and of Shakespeare’s works? Or for that matter, out-of-Twilight research?

By: Jiro Maeda

Jiro Maeda — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 10:17:19 +0000

Kevin and here I thought I was the only one who knew about GAR lol. Does that mean that GAR is beyond Mancore?