Mrs. Mungo (and others): literary candy

[jld]

How do you know when something is the literary equivalent of candy? As not all of us have backgrounds in literary analysis, I was wondering if those who do have this training could share their thoughts. Thank you.

[angela in ohio]

Here is my test: I read something by the author, and I check the sentence structure, the frequency of higher level vocabulary words, and the artistry (is it formulaic and mechanical, or is it creative.) I also look for themes; something that contributes to the 'great conversation.' I look to see if the author is pounding you over the head (that's why we avoid many of the re-published Christian novels,) or if there is absolutely nothing to ponder when you are done with the book.

[Charles Wallace]

How do you know when something is the literary equivalent of candy? As not all of us have backgrounds in literary analysis, I was wondering if those who do have this training could share their thoughts. Thank you.

 

Happy to answer this one.

First of all, here's a disclaimer: Like regular candy, literary candy has its place -- that is, not as the main dish, not as the thing which sustains or is particularly nutritious, but which, in small and infrequent doses, is pleasurable. I'd be lyin' in my teeth if I didn't say that I was quite fond of the oeuvre of Stephen King, so please understand where I'm coming from.

 

What I wish would be a solid understanding that it IS candy, so in view of the fact that your question is basically asking that, I'm happy to answer -- and my answer will focus on children's and YA fiction, since that was the subject of the parent thread I suspect started all of this.

 

What makes a book literary candy?

 

1. It's easy to chew.

Let's start with reading level. Most teen fiction and below is written on a very undemanding grade level -- about 4th or 5th, basically. This includes Twilight, Percy Jackson, and a host of others. Now, if you're in the third grade, this represents some degree of reading challenge, but if you're not, then the language itself -- irrespective of the ideas for now -- tends to be overwhelmingly simplistic and simplified. Sentence structure tends to be simple as well -- quite literally so.

 

Just as an example, let's take a look at the opening of The Lightning Thief, which is written at a 4.7 grade level.

 

 

Look, I didn't want to be a half-blood.

If you're reading this because you think you might be one, my advice is: close this book right now. Believe whatever lie your mom or dad told you about your birth, and try to lead a normal life.

 

 

 

 

Being a half-blood is dangerous. It's scary. Most of the time, it gets you killed in painful, nasty ways.

 

 

 

Sentence 1 - Simple sentence

Sentence 2 - Complex sentence with grammatically incorrect use of a colon

Sentence 3 - Simple sentence

 

 

Sentence 4 - Simple sentence

Sentence 5 - Two-word simple sentence

Sentence 6 - Simple sentence

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and shall I mention the obvious stylistic cribbing from the opening sentences of The Catcher in the Rye?

 

Let's contrast this with a book of greater value such as Johanna Spyri's Heidi:

 

From the old and pleasantly situated village of Mayenfield, a footpath winds through green and shady meadows to the foot of the mountains, which on this side look down from their stern and lofty heights upon the valley below. The land grows gradually wilder as the path ascends, and the climber has not gone far before he begins to inhale the fragrence of the short grass and sturdy mountain-plants, for the way is steep and leads directly up to the summits above. On a clear summer morning in June two figures might be seen climbing the narrow mountain path; one a tall, strong-looking girl, the other a child whom she was leading by the hand, and whose little cheeks were so aglow with heat that the crimson color could be seen even through the dark, sunburnt skin.

 

Is there any question which book teaches more complex thought, more complex and richly detailed ways of looking at the world, more richly varied and specific vocabulary, imagery, and detail? Which one allows you to really SEE this world? Which just sounds like you are overhearing a show on the Disney Channel?

 

 

Also, is there any question why, when confronted with literature that's more challenging -- that is, written on a higher grade level -- too many kids can't read it? Too many of them cry, "It's BOOOORINNNNNG." Well, weaned on a diet of candy will do that to you. "It's boring" is not a good sign. "It's boring" is a sign that reading levels may be stalled out about where they were when a child was nine years old. It's not a good thing...just like too much candy is not a good thing.

 

 

 

2. Who doesn't like "Pants"?

 

 

Simplistic plots with Mary Sue or Gary Sue heroes are the order of the day in lame fiction. In case you haven't heard the wonderful term "Mary Sue," it's a fanfic term for a character who basically acts as a blank-slate fantasy for the author and the readers. I think the author of the cartoon The Oatmeal explains it well in reference to Twilight:

 

 

 

First off, the author creates a main character which is an empty shell. Her appearance isn't described in detail; that way, any female can slip into it and easily fantasize about being this person. I read 400 pages of that book and barely had any idea of what the main character looked like; as far as I was concerned she was a giant Lego brick. Appearance aside, her personality is portrayed as insecure, fumbling, and awkward - a combination anyone who ever went through puberty can relate to. By creating this "empty shell," the character becomes less of a person and more of something a female reader can put on and wear. Because I forgot her name (I think it was Barbara or Brando or something like that), I'm going to refer to her as "Pants" from here on out.

 

In short, whatever characterization exists is very superficial -- much teen fiction seems barely more realistic in its characterization than a John Hughes movie, with teens speaking quasi-witty dialogue no actual teens actually speak -- and all (let's never forget) at the fourth-grade level.

 

 

3. Simplistic plots

 

 

 

 

Seriously. Who really ever thought "Team Jacob" had a chance?

 

 

 

 

Should I say more about this? Okay. My DD read Lightning Thief; I didn't. However, even without reading it, I know Percy won. Won at what? Oh, I have no clue, but he won it.

 

 

 

 

When there's no actual doubt, then there's no actual plot. What you have is a stereotype, a formulaic product as predictable as Cheese Whiz. It's the same. every. time.

 

 

 

 

On the other hand -- and rather than pit Percy Jackson against Shakespeare, which really is not fair, I'll pit bad popular culture against better popular culture: Did anyone see the end of The Sopranos coming the way it did? Unless your name is David Chase, put your hand down...we all know you're lyin'.

 

 

 

 

4. Whut?

 

 

 

 

Candy literature asks no real questions. It never questions our place in the universe or seriously questions our assumptions about it. It rarely or never causes us to make a serious re-evaluation of ideas we've always taken for granted.

 

 

 

 

Good literature does.

 

 

 

For example, we all think that the world would be a better place without evil, yes? Read Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange on the necessity of evil in order to ensure human free will. We all think children are born pure and innocent, free of human taint? Read Lord of the Flies. You think you understand the meaning of friendship? Try reading Of Mice and Men.

 

 

5. Hallmark-card sentiments are not real emotions.

 

 

 

 

I'm looking right at you, Alice Sebold.

 

 

 

Okay, this dissertation's long enough. Any other questions will be on the final exam.:D

 

 

 

Edited May 3, 2010 by Charles Wallace

[GoVanGogh]

Syntax and vocabulary, to me, are key indicators that a book is "literary candy."

Compare any abridged vs. unabridged book at the library or book store ---

 

The Secret Garden (abridge):

Mary Lennox was born in India. She was a pale, thin, sour little girl. She never laughed. She never even smiled. Mary hardly ever saw her parents. They were much too busy.

 

The Secret Garden (unabridged):

When Mary Lennox was sent to Misselthwaite Manor to live with her uncle, everybody said she was the most disagreeable-looking child you ever seen. It was true, too. She had a little thin face and a little thin body, thin light hair and a sour expression....

 

 

The sentences in the abridged version are short and choppy and lack any complexity.

Now look at Clementine, a new series marketed to young children.

 

Clementine:

I have not had so good of a week.

Well, Monday was a pretty good day, if you don't count Hamburger Surprise at lunch and Margaret's mother coming to get her. Or the stuff that happened in the principal's office when I got sent there to explain that Margaret's hair was not my fault and besides she looks okay without it...

 

See how choppy the first two sentences are? And they are followed by an awful run-on sentence. In my opinion, that book doesn't even rate a "literary candy" rating. :tongue_smilie:

I hate to say "You know literary candy when you read it," but I think when you read unabridged classics your ear gets tuned to quality and can detect literary candy.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Happy to answer this one.

First of all, here's a disclaimer: Like regular candy, literary candy has its place -- that is, not as the main dish, not as the thing which sustains or is particularly nutritious, but which, in small and infrequent doses, is pleasurable. I'd be lyin' in my teeth if I didn't say that I was quite fond of the oeuvre of Stephen King, so please understand where I'm coming from.

 

What I wish would be a solid understanding that it IS candy, so in view of the fact that your question is basically asking that, I'm happy to answer -- and my answer will focus on children's and YA fiction, since that was the subject of the parent thread I suspect started all of this.

 

What makes a book literary candy?

 

1. It's easy to chew.

Let's start with reading level. Most teen fiction and below is written on a very undemanding grade level -- about 4th or 5th, basically. This includes Twilight, Percy Jackson, and a host of others. Now, if you're in the third grade, this represents some degree of reading challenge, but if you're not, then the language itself -- irrespective of the ideas for now -- tends to be overwhelmingly simplistic and simplified. Sentence structure tends to be simple as well -- quite literally so.

 

Just as an example, let's take a look at the opening of The Lightning Thief, which is written at a 4.7 grade level.

 

 

Look, I didn't want to be a half-blood.

If you're reading this because you think you might be one, my advice is: close this book right now. Believe whatever lie your mom or dad told you about your birth, and try to lead a normal life.

 

 

 

 

Being a half-blood is dangerous. It's scary. Most of the time, it gets you killed in painful, nasty ways.

 

 

 

Sentence 1 - Simple sentence

Sentence 2 - Complex sentence with grammatically incorrect use of a colon

Sentence 3 - Simple sentence

 

 

Sentence 4 - Simple sentence

Sentence 5 - Two-word simple sentence

Sentence 6 - Simple sentence

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and shall I mention the obvious stylistic cribbing from the opening sentences of The Catcher in the Rye?

 

Let's contrast this with a book of greater value such as Johanna Spyri's Heidi:

 

From the old and pleasantly situated village of Mayenfield, a footpath winds through green and shady meadows to the foot of the mountains, which on this side look down from their stern and lofty heights upon the valley below. The land grows gradually wilder as the path ascends, and the climber has not gone far before he begins to inhale the fragrence of the short grass and sturdy mountain-plants, for the way is steep and leads directly up to the summits above. On a clear summer morning in June two figures might be seen climbing the narrow mountain path; one a tall, strong-looking girl, the other a child whom she was leading by the hand, and whose little cheeks were so aglow with heat that the crimson color could be seen even through the dark, sunburnt skin.

 

Is there any question which book teaches more complex thought, more complex and richly detailed ways of looking at the world, more richly varied and specific vocabulary, imagery, and detail? Which one allows you to really SEE this world? Which just sounds like you are overhearing a show on the Disney Channel?

 

 

Also, is there any question why, when confronted with literature that's more challenging -- that is, written on a higher grade level -- too many kids can't read it? Too many of them cry, "It's BOOOORINNNNNG." Well, weaned on a diet of candy will do that to you. "It's boring" is not a good sign. "It's boring" is a sign that reading levels may be stalled out about where they were when a child was nine years old. It's not a good thing...just like too much candy is not a good thing.

 

 

 

2. Who doesn't like "Pants"?

 

 

Simplistic plots with Mary Sue or Gary Sue heroes are the order of the day in lame fiction. In case you haven't heard the wonderful term "Mary Sue," it's a fanfic term for a character who basically acts as a blank-slate fantasy for the author and the readers. I think the author of the cartoon The Oatmeal explains it well in reference to Twilight:

 

 

 

First off, the author creates a main character which is an empty shell. Her appearance isn't described in detail; that way, any female can slip into it and easily fantasize about being this person. I read 400 pages of that book and barely had any idea of what the main character looked like; as far as I was concerned she was a giant Lego brick. Appearance aside, her personality is portrayed as insecure, fumbling, and awkward - a combination anyone who ever went through puberty can relate to. By creating this "empty shell," the character becomes less of a person and more of something a female reader can put on and wear. Because I forgot her name (I think it was Barbara or Brando or something like that), I'm going to refer to her as "Pants" from here on out.

 

In short, whatever characterization exists is very superficial -- much teen fiction seems barely more realistic in its characterization than a John Hughes movie, with teens speaking quasi-witty dialogue no actual teens actually speak -- and all (let's never forget) at the fourth-grade level.

 

 

3. Simplistic plots

 

 

 

 

Seriously. Who really ever thought "Team Jacob" had a chance?

 

 

 

 

Should I say more about this? Okay. My DD read Lightning Thief; I didn't. However, even without reading it, I know Percy won. Won at what? Oh, I have no clue, but he won it.

 

 

 

 

When there's no actual doubt, then there's no actual plot. What you have is a stereotype, a formulaic product as predictable as Cheese Whiz. It's the same. every. time.

 

 

 

 

On the other hand -- and rather than pit Percy Jackson against Shakespeare, which really is not fair, I'll pit bad popular culture against better popular culture: Did anyone see the end of The Sopranos coming the way it did? Unless your name is David Chase, put your hand down...we all know you're lyin'.

 

 

 

 

4. Whut?

 

 

 

 

Candy literature asks no real questions. It never questions our place in the universe or seriously questions our assumptions about it. It rarely or never causes us to make a serious re-evaluation of ideas we've always taken for granted.

 

 

 

 

Good literature does.

 

 

 

For example, we all think that the world would be a better place without evil, yes? Read Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange on the necessity of evil in order to ensure human free will. We all think children are born pure and innocent, free of human taint? Read Lord of the Flies. You think you understand the meaning of friendship? Try reading Of Mice and Men.

 

 

5. Hallmark-card sentiments are not real emotions.

 

 

 

 

I'm looking right at you, Alice Sebold.

 

 

 

Okay, this dissertation's long enough. Any other questions will be on the final exam.:D

 

 

 

 

Well done. Not that I didn't enjoy reading Percy Jackson. But I enjoyed it because I had fun detecting the original monster hidden in the modern trapping (Procrustes running a waterbed store in a sleezy strip mall. Excellent.)

 

I would add one more. The character in literary candy rarely changes through the course of the story. There is no development, no lesson learned, no maturity gained. They step onto the page as good as they are going to get.

 

Having said that, what is candy for one reader will be a beginning meal for another. My 7 yo would find lots to chew on from a Beverly Cleary story. My 12 yo not so much.

[angela in ohio]

I would add one more. The character in literary candy rarely changes through the course of the story. There is no development, no lesson learned, no maturity gained. They step onto the page as good as they are going to get.

 

Excellent point.

[Perry]

.

 

What makes a book literary candy?

 

 

Excellent. Thanks for taking the time to write this out.

[Haiku]

I really have nothing to add to what Charles Wallace and Sebastian said in terms of recognizing literary candy, because they are spot on.

 

I will say, however, that a book can be a great read and even WORTH reading while still being literary candy. Hey, I went out for coffee on Saturday and had a vegan twinkie (otherwise known as a vinkie). It was yummy. I'll have one again in the future. But for the rest of this week, I will concentrate on a healthy diet.

 

Tara

[justamouse]

 

I'm looking right at you, Alice Sebold.

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

no, really :lol::lol::lol:

 

That is awesome.

 

 

I do have to pipe up though, that pop-fict can challenge your beliefs and make you think. If it doesn't you're not reading the right ones, but they're out there.

[Kimber]

I don't disagree with the statements made in this post. Thanks, Charles, for such a great clarification, by the way.

 

But I have to say, Percy Jackson gets a bum wrap. Basically, the writing in Percy Jackson isn't so great but not because of the reading level and the vocabulary.

 

I spoke with an editor at a writing conference about the book and she didn't like it because it wasn't literary enough. The characters don't grow. At least that was my impression of what she was saying.

 

I've read the books and the reading level is inconsistent. If you make it half-way through the book, the reading level jumps significantly, way above the 4.7 mark. There are complex single sentence paragraphs throughout the book.

 

IMO, the author tried to deliberately write the text so that the student's voice comes through. The main character looses that uneducated voice as the story progresses and the author's own voice comes through.

 

Now that's not to say that this is good writing, cause it obviously isn't either.

 

But it does, to me, reinforce my own idea that books written in first person have a lower reading level because the author of the book is trying to be true to the character, and there's nothing wrong with that. Also the more dialogue, the lower the reading level, unless the characters speak at a higher reading level.

 

I know I'm criticizing the author too, just for a different reason. I'm just saying the book's reading level isn't all that low.

 

Octavian Nothing, on the other hand, is written in 1st person, but Octavian has an unusual education and speaks at a much higher reading level.

 

I think writing today is a little different than writing "back then" and the standards are different, not just lower. At least that's my 2 cents.

 

Personally, we love books here. We read 'em all, everything.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Kimber

[Kimber]

I have never liked the abridged versions. That remake of the Secret Garden just looks wrong.

[TravelingChris]

I would just like to talk about mysteries. Some authors that I read write stories that make you think beyond the initial story. Another way to tell better books is how memorable the characters are.

 

I really don't worry about it. I learn from most things I read. I like well written stories which means the plot holds together and the descriptions and characters are well written. I find authors I like then I go on to read their books. Currently I am on a few series- Georges Simenon's Inspector Maigret and Donna Leon's Commissario Brunetti. THen there are others for whom I wait for their books- MC Beaton, Susan Wittig Albert, Diane Davidson, Ruth Rendell, Alexander McCall Smith, and others. ONe of the great pleasures of my life is reading and I am not going to spend any time worrying about whether someone else likes what I read or not.

[Liza Q]

Having said that, what is candy for one reader will be a beginning meal for another. My 7 yo would find lots to chew on from a Beverly Cleary story. My 12 yo not so much.

 

:iagree:

 

This discussion made me think about how I try to compare Percy Jackson, Harry Potter and LOTR....if PJ is a Snickers Bar (and Twilight is a Starburst!) and LOTR is dinner ('cause Narnia is lunch?!) then HP is - carrot cake with nuts and cream cheese frosting?

[Haiku]

ONe of the great pleasures of my life is reading and I am not going to spend any time worrying about whether someone else likes what I read or not.

 

I don't think that's the point of the discussion. When it comes to my kids' education, I am going to raise them on quality literature, the same way I raise them on wholesome food. If they decide when they are older to spend their time eating crap and reading candy, well, so be it. They still will have benefited from my careful attention when they were children.

 

I am not so much into fiction for myself. I tend to read non-fiction. But if I enjoyed reading candy a lot (or a little), it wouldn't be anyone else's business (as you said). But that's the not the context we are discussing here.

 

Tara

[Mrs Mungo]

I mostly agree with Charles Wallace.

 

I'm going to say a couple of other things that Charles Wallace might agree or disagree with. ;)

 

Well done. Not that I didn't enjoy reading Percy Jackson. But I enjoyed it because I had fun detecting the original monster hidden in the modern trapping (Procrustes running a waterbed store in a sleezy strip mall. Excellent.)

 

I would add one more. The character in literary candy rarely changes through the course of the story. There is no development, no lesson learned, no maturity gained. They step onto the page as good as they are going to get.

 

Having said that, what is candy for one reader will be a beginning meal for another. My 7 yo would find lots to chew on from a Beverly Cleary story. My 12 yo not so much.

 

I agree with all of these points. Especially about the character development. In fact, I would say this point holds about *many* of the books Oprah chooses for her "book club," despite some of them being well-written.

 

I would make one other point. To me, it's not "is it candy or is it a classic?" There is a continuum. Some books are better than others. Some books with simple sentences really make you think and have a lot of redeeming value. Some books that are well written do not. There are several historical fiction books that I think are worth including in your curricula, but may not be the best written books out there. By the same token, some extremely well written books are not worth reading, imo, because they are poorly told stories (Phillip Pullman comes to mind for me, I know others disagree).

 

There is also value in *studying* a book, which might not have the highest literary standards, but is able to impart historical information. The Horatio Hornblower books are an example of this. They are higher than a Twilight reading level, but I would still put them in the candy category, if not for the vast amount of accurate historical information that they can impart.

 

I don't think that's the point of the discussion. When it comes to my kids' education, I am going to raise them on quality literature, the same way I raise them on wholesome food. If they decide when they are older to spend their time eating crap and reading candy, well, so be it. They still will have benefited from my careful attention when they were children.

 

I am not so much into fiction for myself. I tend to read non-fiction. But if I enjoyed reading candy a lot (or a little), it wouldn't be anyone else's business (as you said). But that's the not the context we are discussing here.

 

I agree. There is absolutely, positively *nothing* wrong with candy, unless it's all you eat and/or unless you're trying to pretend it's a balanced diet.

 

eta: I said in another thread that I believe a classic is a book that remains popular and relevant over a long period of time. This may not mean that it's well written. Love Story is a book that is a classic because it does speak to teens and young adults, but it's not that well written. Harry Potter, I believe, will remain popular because it's a great piece of storytelling, not because it's a great piece of literature. Twilight, imo, will fall to the wayside like the VC Andrews books that were popular when I was a teen.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Mejane]

Twilight, imo, will fall to the wayside like the VC Andrews books that were popular when I was a teen.

 

From your lips to God's ears. ;)

[justamouse]

I was thinking about this thread all morning and came back to say what Mrs. Mungo did.

 

Storytelling will trump vocabulary any day and six times on Sunday. Some of the most profound stories need to be told in the simplest words. So, while words and sentences may not be complicated, you have to ask yourself what the character arc is, and what the author is trying to say.

 

Character POV is a tool that should be discussed with any story. Why did the author choose that character's POV to tell the story from? What did it show about the character and what (sometimes more importantly) did the character not reveal? What is the arc of the character chapter by chapter (there should be one) and what is the arc of the main character through the book (there most definitely be one)? Do you agree with those arcs or not?

 

My daughter hated THE SECRET GARDEN not because of the vocab or the long paragraphs of narration, but because she poked holes in the plot (and wrote the funniest book report about it).

 

Those are the questions I would be more concerned with, and not necessarily the vocabulary and complexity of sentence structure.

Edited May 3, 2010 by justamouse

[Charles Wallace]

Harry Potter, I believe, will remain popular because it's a great piece of storytelling, not because it's a great piece of literature. Twilight, imo, will fall to the wayside like the VC Andrews books that were popular when I was a teen.

 

I don't know at all what you're talking about. Nope. Never heard of him. Not at all.

:leaving:

[Mrs Mungo]

I was thinking about this thread all morning and came back to say what Mrs. Mungo did.

 

Storytelling will trump vocabulary any day and six times on Sunday. Some of the most profound stories need to be told in the simplest words. So, while words and sentences may not be complicated, you have to ask yourself what the character arc is, and what the author is trying to say.

 

Character POV is a tool that should be discussed with any story. Why did the author choose that character's POV to tell the story from? What did it show about the character and what (sometimes more importantly) did the character not reveal? What is the arc of the character chapter by chapter (there should be one) and what is the arc of the main character through the book (there most definitely be one)? Do you agree with those arcs or not?

 

My daughter hated THE SECRET GARDEN not because of the vocab or the long paragraphs of narration, but because she poked holes in the plot (and wrote the funniest book report about it).

 

Those are the questions I would be more concerned with, and not necessarily the vocabulary and complexity of sentence structure.

 

For me, it's a combination. I really like Beverly Clearly's books for the sort of third to fifth grade levels because they are fairly well written, they don't use dumbed-down vocabulary, but they aren't torture. I like some books because they are well written. I like some books because they have great stories. The books that make my personal "great books" list have both elements and/or have a major impact on the way that I think about things.

 

I completely reject the notion (not from you, justamouse), that a book that isn't fun to read isn't worth reading. There have books that I have struggled with but were *very* worth my time. I just read a candyish book when I'm done. :tongue_smilie:

 

I don't know at all what you're talking about. Nope. Never heard of him. Not at all.

:leaving:

 

:lol:

[rwjx2khsmj]

I'd like to question the "pants" issue. While I think that some physical description of a main character can help us picture that character, a full out detail of hair color, eye color and current attractive outfit is unnecessary and irrelevant to the plot of most excellent stories. Some details about the physical aspect of a character are necessary as it pertains to the story and those should be included. Hair color normally isn't pivotal to plot. As we come to know the character through the thoughts and the action of an excellent story, what they look becomes a matter of each readers imagination.

 

I also want to clarify that this in no way endorses Twilight as literary genius. I'm actually thinking more of the detailed descriptions offered at the beginning of each and every Nancy Drew book, just in case someone didn't know Nancy was above average in looks and intelligence and Bess was lovely and slightly overweight.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'd like to question the "pants" issue. While I think that some physical description of a main character can help us picture that character, a full out detail of hair color, eye color and current attractive outfit is unnecessary and irrelevant to the plot of most excellent stories. Some details about the physical aspect of a character are necessary as it pertains to the story and those should be included. Hair color normally isn't pivotal to plot. As we come to know the character through the thoughts and the action of an excellent story, what they look becomes a matter of each readers imagination.

 

But I would argue that in Twilight it applies to all facets of her character, not just her looks. Her only defining characteristic is angst.

[Charles Wallace]

But I would argue that in Twilight it applies to all facets of her character, not just her looks. Her only defining characteristic is angst.

 

And a hankerin' for stalkers.:D

[Mergath]

For me, a book is literary candy if I get to the end and feel nothing except light and happy. I don't really look at the level of writing so much as the content of a book. A book might be short and poorly written, but if it gets inside your head and makes you think about something, I wouldn't consider it candy.

[LibraryLover]

I love great books...I am not a fluff-readng person myself (I have never even been tempted to read Twilight lol) for the most part. ;) Yet I know that any book can spark a great and important interest that can lead to more meaty books and PhDs :) If a book makes you pause, makes you want more, then I think it's worthy. I think Percy Jackson does this. I've seen it make kids hungry for more. We had a young visitor of 8 greedily devour our cofee table book of D' Aulaires' Book of Greek Myths becuase he had read the first Percy Jackson book. If a spark is ignited...I am open to the gate- way books. ;)

Edited May 4, 2010 by LibraryLover

[jld]

Mergath, would you please give an example of each type of book you mentioned? Thank you.

[Mergath]

Mergath, would you please give an example of each type of book you mentioned? Thank you.

 

Oh gosh, I didn't realize there was going to be a test... :tongue_smilie:

 

Well, I've never thought The Yellow Wallpaper, by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, was particularly well-written (though that could be debated), and it's quite short. I wouldn't consider that candy, though. Creepy, horrifying book. Couldn't get it out of my head for a long time.

 

The Blazing Word, by Margaret Cavendish, is atrociously written and probably WAS considered candy (written by a mad, foolish woman, no less) in the seventeenth century. But I found it interesting enough to write a fifteen page paper that won me my school's most prestigious humanities contest. (Yes, I am bragging, thank you for asking. :D)

 

Some would probably consider Philip Pullman's trilogy to be candy, since it's a YA fantasy work, but there's definitely a lot more there than in many adult novels. Enough to make me think for weeks.

 

Some might consider Neil Gaiman's books candy because he writes fantasy, but a few of his books have haunted me for quite awhile.

 

As for books that I do consider candy... Hmm. Anything by Jodi Picoult. I know a lot of her books supposedly have a moral, but it's like watching a Lifetime movie- she hits you over the head with her moral, and then you don't really think about it again.

 

The Twilight books are candy. Definitely. Pretty shiny candy.

 

Graceling, by Kristin Cashore, would count as candy for me. Which pains me to say, because it's my new favorite book at the moment. But definitely candy.

 

I haven't decided if Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and novels are candy yet. I'm through a little over a third of the complete works, and I always feel light and happy at the end of one, but they aren't what most would consider candy. Candy-esque, maybe.

 

ETA: Whoops, that should have been The Blazing World. That's what I get for trying to post at five in the morning. Oh, and just pretend that all of the book titles I mentioned are italicized. :D

Edited May 4, 2010 by Mergath

[jld]

LOL . . . yes, it's always an essay test with me.:)

 

Thanks for your list of candy and substance, and for your comments explaining why.:)

 

Anyone else?

[Charles Wallace]

Oh gosh, I didn't realize there was going to be a test... :tongue_smilie:

 

Well, I've never thought The Yellow Wallpaper, by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, was particularly well-written (though that could be debated), and it's quite short. I wouldn't consider that candy, though. Creepy, horrifying book. Couldn't get it out of my head for a long time.

 

 

 

I think it was a carefully-written story -- stylistically not great, but fabulous Gothic. The autobiographical emphasis and the symbolism of the greenhouse and "nursery" are compelling. Here's a great place to begin analysis of this story: Who is "Jane"?;)