Hi nerdfighters. I just blogged on the homepage, defending Romeo and Juliet from a weird little movement trying to strip the play's status as a love story. Crazy nonsense that I did my best to beat up with my brain.
How about you? What book do want to defend from haters? Explain!
While I personally am not a fan of this book, I do feel like Twilight fans often get way to much hate for liking Twilight so I just wanted to defend them. So first of all, why do we read books? I was taught that there are three types of writing. Informational, persuasive, and entertainment. I don't think anyone who goes into reading Twilight thinks it is going to teach them anything, or persuade them to do anything. People read Twilight so they can be entertained by it. And I know that when I read it, I was entertained. While I might have spent the whole time pulling my hair out because of the bad writing, when I focused on just the story, I found that I wanted to know what happened next and enjoyed myself while reading it. So my defense of Twilight is that I had fun reading it, and that should be what we look for in a book.
I agree with you! When I read it, I enjoyed it, put it away. I don't think it truly deserves that much bashing as it gets.
I enjoyed the book. The movie was terrible (at least the first movie). I really hate it when people say "sparkeling vampires aren't real vampires. What is a real vampire? of course, they retort, "Dracula!". Dracula wasn't even the original vampire and was based off of legends that have been around centries before the book was even published. Dracula was just an adaptation from the original legends and so was twilight, buffy, Angel, Interview with a vampire, Vampire Knight, the chronicals of Vladimir tod, Vampire diaries, and so on.
Also, Twilight has the same tourtured vampire theme you get in several vampire movies, books, television shows ect. such as Angel in Buffy, Stefan in Vampire diaries, Dimitri in Vampire academy after he stopped being a stragoi (however you spell it). Even Dracula was a bit tortured. So there.
Twilight wasn't as horrible as some have said, but it was rife with faults, both literary and morally. I'm fine with discussions that point out the book's problematic displays of relationships, but I also think the book can be read in an entertaining manner that views those relationships for what they are: fictional stories about fictional characters. I find the crowd that loves the series intriguing and diverse, and it has to be said that reading about a world that is unlike your own is one of the best reasons to read at all. I'm not a fan of bashing Twilight fans (though I give my dad some good-natured grief for loving the books so much).
I agree. I read Twilight when it first came out and while it does have a lot of issues, it's not even close to being as bad as many people make it out to be. Sure, it's not particularly well written, and there are some moral issues involving the plot, but so many other books do and they're not constantly torn apart.
Twilight definitely wasn't intended to be an educational book. It was written to serve as entertaining, and that is what it has done. It's a fluffy love story. I don't fault people for reading it, because I did. I also don't fault people for liking it, because who am I to mock someone else's opinion? That's what an opinion is; not everyone is going to feel the same way about every issue.
Lastly, I think a good thing about Twilight is that it got teens reading again. Sure, it's not the greatest but there were so many kids at school who I hadn't seen holding a book in years reading it, then suddenly they started reading other books too.
The Bluest Eye. We read it in my 11th grade class and I was the only one who actually liked it. Most of my classmates thought it was just either too weird of a subject or a boring book. However, it's a compelling look at the life within the poorer black community and that of an abused girl. I though Toni Morrison portrayed the characters well, and she told a story that most would not want to hear. It was beautifully written.
I totally agree, Carrie.
Romeo and Juliet is not a love story or a play about love. If you consider the great comentary inside the story without the distraction of the two teenagers in puppy love you see this wondeful complecity of family dynamics, business, and class conduct. It has just been taken ove as a love story and drummed to death as one untill we all despise it fo being such. If the families had not acted as they did in the confinds of how they felt they needed to act and how society dictated them Romeo and Juliet would have lived and that is the only reson why those two characters are inportant.
Like many works of the Bard you have to look at the characters behind the main characters to get the full comentary of the piece.
I am not a large fan of the Bard but I have read a number of his works and I would say that Romeo and Juliet is not one of his beat and probely the most miss translated.
A book I have had to defend? The most recent one was the "Wolf's Tooth" by Christiena Eisenburg. It is a wonderful piece written by an engaging woman (I have had the privalage of eating lunch with her several times) about how thropic cascades work and we have come to understand how they function. It is also intertwined with her own experience of living with wolves and working with wolves. Unlike most (I am being honest here) works on ecology and thropic cascades it is a quick read and a page turner.
But when I try to explain this to people their eyes role back at the mention of wolves or science. If they would just set aside their own prejudgements of a scientific work they would know they are not all "dry dusty things with big words that beat down those not in the know"
Interesting perspective on Romeo and Juliet, though I fail to see the main plot line as a distraction.
The history around the time period the play is set in allows for the commentary of the supporting characters. Romeo and Juliet have some amazing lines but other then that i have always seen them as 2 dimetional characters where many others in the play are 3 dimentional. I do have to say I have never seen the play acted on stage only crappy movies and have read it. My husband who is a mighty fan of the Bard always says to me when we get into this discution that to see the full depth of the play you must SEE IT.
I don't know anyone esle that agrees with me about the main plot. XD
It's true that Romeo and Juliet arguably has no characters with the kind of depth of Othello and Hamlet. Still, I'd love to see some examples of the supporting characters in the play you feel have more depth than the lovers.
At the time of reading characters such as Benvolio and Mercutio, or Friar Lawrence (who is often a forgotten character that the story hinges on) just seem to have more life more depth as you say then the two love birds with stars in their eyes. They are so young and so foolish even though those who love them most and know them are trying to warn them.