Somedays, I think it would be wonderful to get paid to read. Then I realize that no one in their right mind would pay me to read books that have already been published. Oh, well, I guess I am forced to read them in my off time.
Now for my assessment of the following series: The Hunger Games and Divergent. If you have not read either of them and/or are just planning on watching them as they come out in the movies, I'd stop reading now because I am going to spoil the shit out of them.
I am on the second book of the Divergent series. I was hesitant to read it because I am such a huge Hunger Games fan and was worried that maybe it would turn me off to that franchise. It didn't turn me off, per se, but I have spent some time comparing the two internally.
While I will always have a special place in my heart for The Hunger Games (as it was the first dystopian series that I ever picked up) I think that Divergent has weaseled it's way into first place. While they are both written for the Young Adult audience (which, let's face it, I'm not a young adult anymore) The Hunger Games and Divergent are well executed. The difference is that The Hunger Games I would be comfortable with sharing with my gifted six year old now and Divergent would need to wait a few years. Divergent is more likely to hit you where it hurts while the Hunger Games, in a way, sugar coats the effects of war. Yes, it destroyed District 12. Yes, Gale was flogged in the middle of the town square. But not until the very last book (and stop reading NOW to avoid previously mentioned spoilers) does it do any major damage by killing Katniss's sister, Prim. Don't get me wrong, the Hunger Games themselves are brutal but even they scoot around Katniss ever having to do any major killing herself.
Divergent, on the other hand, is brutal from the get go. The Dauntless initiation alone is full of inter-faction maiming, as Edward is stabbed in the eye with a butter knife by Peter and Tris is attacked by the same guy plus her supposed friend, Al. Not only were they intending on killing her (as I'm sure Peter has no conscience and would do just that) they groped her in the process. The fear simulations are terrifying and this is before the war between the factions even starts. Even though they give Tris the ability to overcome the affects of the fear simulation (meaning she can manipulate it to get out of whatever situation arises) the affect is still clear when she has to kill her family. (Although again, she bypasses that by shooting herself.) When the simulation to control the Dauntless begins (which has no power over the Divergent, Tris and Four/Tobias) the emotional toll on the reader quadruples. Tris is powerless to stop the simulation, forced to kill her friend, and eventually watch her mother and father's murders. The only time it gets a little "sugar-coated" (and let's face it, everyone would have been pissed if this hadn't happened) is when she encounters Four under the affects of an injection which held a stronger, Divergent friendly, simulation. She refuses to kill him, he wakes up and they both run off to Amity.
I'm reading the second book now, Insurgent, and it's even more brutal than the first.
Again, sometimes I wish I could give my assessment of these books as a profession. Not that anyone would care, nor listen, but I think I would just love to read all day long. But for now, my children are calling me and I guess I have to go be human for a while.
Showing posts with label reading. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reading. Show all posts
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Why You Should Read Whatever The Hell You Want...
I've been mulling over this article since last night. I was unsure if I should or would respond, or if it would even matter. I've decided that it matters enough to me (and 3K comments) to sit down with the article and explain why it's unbelievably elitist, snobby and blanketed.
First, Ruth Graham, you should be embarrassed (as both a human being and especially as a "former librarian") to make a blanket statement like you did and think it's acceptable. Then you even had the balls to call it "unconventional." Bless your cold dead heart.
Maybe the past ten-twenty years or so have showed a surge in adult sales for Young Adult novels. I'm not going to pretend like I don't remember the screaming "Twilight Moms." I think that to make your point you chose the worst book imaginable as your catalyst. "A Fault In Our Stars" is not just a young adult novel and you managed to isolate a very large group of very passionate adults by this choice. I have to wonder, Ruth, with your clearly superior reading material, did you manage to find an article discussing childhood cancer survivor statistics? I'm going to go with probably not or you would have recognized your mistake immediately. (Oh and yes, it makes you heartless... not a grown up.)
Let's say for the sake of argument (since the statistics I am looking for are unlikely to exist) that 75% of the Young Adult readers are normal, Joe Schmoe, work from 9-5 adults. You are discounting an entire 25% of readers: moms of children with cancer, adult childhood cancer survivors, adult cancer patients, oncologists, Hematology/Oncology nurses, etc. etc. It is obvious that I am being extremely conservative with my percentages here because I have no doubt that the numbers that I'm using are way smaller than the actual human beings I'm describing. (Speaking of, I am a mother of a childhood cancer survivor. Tomorrow, June 15th, he will make his four year anniversary of the life saving cord blood transplant. He is only six.)
Now let's go on ahead and just discount that entire 25%, because I'm feeling particularly ballsy myself. As a librarian, how can you with a straight face say that anyone, no matter their age or background, should not read whatever they want? Low literacy costs the country millions of dollars each year in healthcare. Low literacy nearly ensures that those suffering from it end up on welfare. A whopping 75% of people who receive food stamps, perform at the lowest two levels of literacy. Don't believe me? Read it here. (Note: I have absolutely nothing against welfare or food stamps, as I have benefited from both as a single mother of a child with cancer.) In 2013, someone wrote an article about how the illiteracy rate in the United States had not budged in 10 years. Maybe it's because snooty two-shoes such as yourselves have declared that there is acceptable and not acceptable reading material.
As an avid reader (ranging from J.R.R. Tolkein to Douglas Adams to Jane Austen and so many others that I can't even begin to name them all) I can't imagine ever telling a fellow reader that they should be ashamed of what they are reading. Are they enjoying it? Are they expanding their mind with each word? Have they just finished reading "War and Peace" and now want to slowly escape into something on a shorter level? Does it matter? Short answer: No. It does not. Maybe you feel that it does in your very tiny little bubble of judgment but it really, truly does not. Adults that read are more likely to pass on their love of reading to their children. I know that my son at six years old is already getting deeply entrenched in the reader's paradise. How could you begrudge anyone that?
Now, to take a stab at your assessment regarding the essay by Jen Doll stating, "At its heart, YA aims to be pleasurable." There are two main reasons why people choose to read: pleasure and education. I have never in my entire life heard of someone say, "I am reading this book because I want to be bored stiff." Do you read to be bored? Doubtful. I imagine that whatever you are reading is educational or interesting to you. Your "eye roll" appraisal of these books doesn't make you witty either. It instead reads of a very bitter, unhappy individual who can't stand the idea of someone getting a happy ending, even a fictional teenager with cancer. (Again, how can you say these things with a straight face? Did you come from under a bridge?) I do not need a happy ending to read a book. In fact, I also enjoy the "unconventional" endings of death and dismemberment. That doesn't mean that I can't look at other works of fiction objectively and enjoy their pleasurable and easy to read nature.
"The Fault in Our Stars" took me back to a time when my two year old was a very sick little boy. I imagined what it would be like if he had been older when he suffered from it. It made me sit down and assess my emotions and fears and so much more. Maybe it is "nothing" or "makes you roll your eyes" but to me it is so much more. This book told me that despite the hell that my son went through and very likely will go through again, that he could potentially have a happy ending. When this article and thousands more like it, say that that is extremely unlikely. So, don't you dare begrudge me a happy ending, Ruth Graham, when neither of us even got a happy beginning. If you ever get the chance to read this, I genuinely hope it gives you some perspective, as you desperately need it.
First, Ruth Graham, you should be embarrassed (as both a human being and especially as a "former librarian") to make a blanket statement like you did and think it's acceptable. Then you even had the balls to call it "unconventional." Bless your cold dead heart.
Maybe the past ten-twenty years or so have showed a surge in adult sales for Young Adult novels. I'm not going to pretend like I don't remember the screaming "Twilight Moms." I think that to make your point you chose the worst book imaginable as your catalyst. "A Fault In Our Stars" is not just a young adult novel and you managed to isolate a very large group of very passionate adults by this choice. I have to wonder, Ruth, with your clearly superior reading material, did you manage to find an article discussing childhood cancer survivor statistics? I'm going to go with probably not or you would have recognized your mistake immediately. (Oh and yes, it makes you heartless... not a grown up.)
Let's say for the sake of argument (since the statistics I am looking for are unlikely to exist) that 75% of the Young Adult readers are normal, Joe Schmoe, work from 9-5 adults. You are discounting an entire 25% of readers: moms of children with cancer, adult childhood cancer survivors, adult cancer patients, oncologists, Hematology/Oncology nurses, etc. etc. It is obvious that I am being extremely conservative with my percentages here because I have no doubt that the numbers that I'm using are way smaller than the actual human beings I'm describing. (Speaking of, I am a mother of a childhood cancer survivor. Tomorrow, June 15th, he will make his four year anniversary of the life saving cord blood transplant. He is only six.)
Now let's go on ahead and just discount that entire 25%, because I'm feeling particularly ballsy myself. As a librarian, how can you with a straight face say that anyone, no matter their age or background, should not read whatever they want? Low literacy costs the country millions of dollars each year in healthcare. Low literacy nearly ensures that those suffering from it end up on welfare. A whopping 75% of people who receive food stamps, perform at the lowest two levels of literacy. Don't believe me? Read it here. (Note: I have absolutely nothing against welfare or food stamps, as I have benefited from both as a single mother of a child with cancer.) In 2013, someone wrote an article about how the illiteracy rate in the United States had not budged in 10 years. Maybe it's because snooty two-shoes such as yourselves have declared that there is acceptable and not acceptable reading material.
As an avid reader (ranging from J.R.R. Tolkein to Douglas Adams to Jane Austen and so many others that I can't even begin to name them all) I can't imagine ever telling a fellow reader that they should be ashamed of what they are reading. Are they enjoying it? Are they expanding their mind with each word? Have they just finished reading "War and Peace" and now want to slowly escape into something on a shorter level? Does it matter? Short answer: No. It does not. Maybe you feel that it does in your very tiny little bubble of judgment but it really, truly does not. Adults that read are more likely to pass on their love of reading to their children. I know that my son at six years old is already getting deeply entrenched in the reader's paradise. How could you begrudge anyone that?
Now, to take a stab at your assessment regarding the essay by Jen Doll stating, "At its heart, YA aims to be pleasurable." There are two main reasons why people choose to read: pleasure and education. I have never in my entire life heard of someone say, "I am reading this book because I want to be bored stiff." Do you read to be bored? Doubtful. I imagine that whatever you are reading is educational or interesting to you. Your "eye roll" appraisal of these books doesn't make you witty either. It instead reads of a very bitter, unhappy individual who can't stand the idea of someone getting a happy ending, even a fictional teenager with cancer. (Again, how can you say these things with a straight face? Did you come from under a bridge?) I do not need a happy ending to read a book. In fact, I also enjoy the "unconventional" endings of death and dismemberment. That doesn't mean that I can't look at other works of fiction objectively and enjoy their pleasurable and easy to read nature.
"The Fault in Our Stars" took me back to a time when my two year old was a very sick little boy. I imagined what it would be like if he had been older when he suffered from it. It made me sit down and assess my emotions and fears and so much more. Maybe it is "nothing" or "makes you roll your eyes" but to me it is so much more. This book told me that despite the hell that my son went through and very likely will go through again, that he could potentially have a happy ending. When this article and thousands more like it, say that that is extremely unlikely. So, don't you dare begrudge me a happy ending, Ruth Graham, when neither of us even got a happy beginning. If you ever get the chance to read this, I genuinely hope it gives you some perspective, as you desperately need it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)