I recently had an interesting conversation with a young man - a writer, an earnest artist - about the value of commercial fiction (as opposed to literary fiction). The question at hand - is Harry Potter worth reading?
My young friend's take, as I understand it, is that commercial fiction adds no value to one's store of knowledge or understanding and is, therefore, not worth the time it takes to read a book like those in the Harry Potter series. He said that you may as well just go see the movie.
I say there's room in the world for both commercial and literary fiction. Both play a role. Sure, the intent of commercial fiction is to entertain. But, there's a residual benefit.
It's about literacy.
People that read have larger vocabularies and - because they know more words, understand those words, and understand, perhaps intuitively, how to construct a sentence and paragraph - have better written communication skills. Knowing more words gives them more words to express themselves verbally as well. (I'm sure there are studies out there that support this notion, I just can't find them at the moment.)
Anecdotal evidence supports this idea. Of all the students that I've had come through my university classroom, the ones with strong communication skills were the ones that read for fun. The ones that struggled the most were the ones that were never exposed to reading as a form of entertainment.
Literary fiction is fiction for those that want something more than entertainment from their books. It's for people that look to books as a way to expand their minds, stretch their horizons. And, sure, it's a shame that more people don't embrace literary fiction; that it's become something for connoisseurs rather than the common man.
So, all you commercial fiction writers and earnest artists out there, what do you think?
My young friend's take, as I understand it, is that commercial fiction adds no value to one's store of knowledge or understanding and is, therefore, not worth the time it takes to read a book like those in the Harry Potter series. He said that you may as well just go see the movie.
I say there's room in the world for both commercial and literary fiction. Both play a role. Sure, the intent of commercial fiction is to entertain. But, there's a residual benefit.
It's about literacy.
People that read have larger vocabularies and - because they know more words, understand those words, and understand, perhaps intuitively, how to construct a sentence and paragraph - have better written communication skills. Knowing more words gives them more words to express themselves verbally as well. (I'm sure there are studies out there that support this notion, I just can't find them at the moment.)
Anecdotal evidence supports this idea. Of all the students that I've had come through my university classroom, the ones with strong communication skills were the ones that read for fun. The ones that struggled the most were the ones that were never exposed to reading as a form of entertainment.
Literary fiction is fiction for those that want something more than entertainment from their books. It's for people that look to books as a way to expand their minds, stretch their horizons. And, sure, it's a shame that more people don't embrace literary fiction; that it's become something for connoisseurs rather than the common man.
So, all you commercial fiction writers and earnest artists out there, what do you think?
2 comments:
A young lady blogged about a conversation we have recently had revolving around the question, "Is Harry Potter worth reading?" I must still proclaim that the answer is an emphatic NO! It was argued by the young lady that there were residual benefits to reading commercial fiction - such as the reader (young reader, specifically) gains increases in his/her levels of language usage and structure. This conclusion was based upon anecdotal evidence that people that this blogger has encountered in life tend to have a more sophisticated grasp of language and literature when they "read for fun." And so I ponder still, have we asked the question of what these "people" are reading? As the blogger in question sited unspecified studies, as will I. There have been numerous studies conducted recently that illustrate that most children who are encouraged to read Harry Potter (or other such pop movie-like fiction) tend to read nothing else. The diction and sentence structure of commercial fiction is similar to that of an average newspaper article - requiring barely more synapses firing in one's mind to comprehend than an average TV show. Therefore, when many children (and even adults) are exposed to a less linear genre (be it a novel or cinema) the cliche'-driven expectations established by the rote memorization of simple and linear plot lines and language usage, they immediately feel a sense of being unsatisfied and will more than likely stop reading the William Falkner novel that a well intentioned young lady blogger has handed to them. So I amend my first sentence - Is little Harry worth reading? Maybe, but only with the understanding that it is not particularly good literature and that there is only something to be gained by an evolution away from the prosaic toward the poetry of our collective souls
I'll have to keep researching to find those studies. (grin)
These comments lead to another question - what can be done to help readers transition from commercial fiction to literature? Is this something that needs to be addressed in the schools?
Post a Comment