Why Children Hate To Read: For Starters

Sadly, today I spent lots of time at the doctor's office and in the hospital. Don't worry, everything is fine. Knowing me and my impatient self, I decided none of the magazines were worth my time so I thought maybe I could get a kick out of reading a children's book called "Not Norman".

I opened the first page of the book and began reading. By the second page, in my mind I was thinking "wow, this kid is a brat". To summarize the book, I will just say that a kid for his birthday received a goldfish from his parents as a gift and he was not happy because he wanted a "real" pet, I recall the book even describing that he wanted a pet that he could play with, sleep with, run around with, etc. The pictures also imply that the kid is hurting the goldfish's feelings. Yes, I know it is a goldfish and in reality, if a kid didn't want a goldfish, it wouldn't cry, but I started wondering if in the long run, it makes kids believe that it is ok to hurt someone's feelings by either mocking them, bullying them, or not wanting to be their friend.

As I continue reading this book, I try to figure out where it is going. Was it trying to tell children that it is ok not to appreciate presents? He wanted to return his goldfish and trade it for something "cooler", he even tries to sell it to his classmates. I then ask myself, why am I reading this? Not only was the message terrible, but the book itself was boring and the character was conveyed as rude. Just so that I could generate a valid opinion, I continued to read the book and of course there was the happy ending where the kid finally accepted the goldfish and wanted to keep it.

Then it occurred to me, books like these were the very reason I hated reading in elementary school. Boring books with characters like the one in this book made me hate reading (and don't get me started on the reading passages that are given to you for standardized testing. If you really want a child to do well on a test, give them passages that will be somewhat interesting).

So then I started thinking back to when I actually developed the desire to read. I did not like reading until about 10th grade when I discovered Stephen King, then after my interest developed, I moved to other authors. Yes, Stephen King may be considered a freak to most people but admit it, the guy can write a novel and keep you interested. Now I am not saying Stephen King is what elementary students should be reading but I am saying that books should be written in order to encourage students to develop the desire to read. Make it interesting and fun, and I think that should apply to not only elementary school but middle school and high school as well. Point is, if kids are reading books like "Not Norman" and are even half as bored as I was, you're teaching them right off the bat that reading is boring.

Now for my point- STOP GIVING CHILDREN A BORING SELECTION OF BOOKS! Reading is a good thing!
If you have an interest in writing or even think that I made a point in this blog, have you ever considered writing children's books? The thought crossed my mind and I am heavily considering it. If you are too, get busy!

Movies vs Books- Who wins?

How many times have you read an amazing, well-written novel? How many times has that novel been turned into a movie and made a total disaster?

Personally, my opinion is that if a movie is made to tell a story from a bestseller, it should follow the story line verbatim. It seems that the very few movies that DO follow a novel's storyline turn out better in the long run for not only the readers, but for the viewers as well. For example, other than the additional narrator, the Notebook actually followed the novel pretty well. Angels and Demons by Dan Brown did leave out a few points (I believe this was do to time constraint) but overall, conveyed the meaning and gave the viewers adventure like the novel.
But in relation to Dear John, Time Travelor's Wife, My Sister's Keeper, and so on, Hollywood ruined the novel for all those who read it.

Why do producers do this? Apparently because "following a book loyally does not guarantee box office success".

In Dear John, Hollywood altered the ending so that they could give their viewers the sense that John and Savannah lived "happily ever after". In the movie, John and Savannah continue their loving relationship after the death of Savannah's husband, Tim. This novel was purposely written to be a tragedy. What is so tragic about a happy ending? Sparks wrote the first half of the novel as a love story so that the readers could connect with John and Savannah, so that in the end, the readers are able to relate to John's suffereing when he loses his love while away at war. Also, the movie did not touch on why John and his father had such an awful and distant relationship, so in return, you never understand the true meaning of the coin collection unless you read the novel.

In My Sister's Keeper, Hollywood turned a beautiful and heart breaking story into "an outrage" for the readers. For everyone who read Jody Picolt's novel, this movie was a HUGE disappointment. The ending is what captured the readers and Hollywood chose to tweak it in the worst way. Also, characters were left out as well as all of the struggles in the relationships. The movie focused mainly on Anna, Sara, and Katie while the book walks you through the entire family's suffering. Do you think that if Hollywood captured the true beauty behind this novel instead of changing the ending, that it would not have been a box office success?

Do you think movies in general would be better if Hollywood stuck to the author's story?


Hollywood's 'excuse' - http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/02/prweb205661.htm