tombombodil wrote:clintmemo wrote:While "getting kids to raed" may not be it's primary purpose, to dismiss it as an advantage is wrong and elitest.
I'm not saying they everyone needs to start with Machiavelli; there is TONS of absolutely fantastic fiction written for kids and targeted at that reading level. I've read lots of it. I'm talking about books I consider to be the literary equivalent of junk food. Junk food isn't a gate-way drug to a balanced diet, and reading and re-reading derivative tripe (which kids will absolutely do instead of moving on to other books) isn't going to effectively graduate kids into reading stuff that's actually fulfilling and enriching, or even just well written derivative pop-corn novels.
You are speaking in absolutes and generalities.
The facts are that some kids do start reading with books like Harry Potter and do move on to bigger and better things. (I'll ignore that bigger and better things just invites the argument of subjective vs objective in art.)
And even for those kids that never read anything else, we are better off with a world where 500 million people have only ever read Harry Potter or Twilight or Percy Jackson or The Hunger Games or whatever else you want to name, than to have a world where those 500 million people have not read anything at all.
Because being proficient at reading is objectively better than not being proficient at reading.