Sometimes when I consider why reading has been a big part of my life, I think of ""The Catcher in the Rye."" Even though it came out more than 50 years ago, it's still relevant to adolescents everywhere. It certainly was to me when I read it at 13 and found that it harmonized perfectly with my sense of angst and feelings that I had the most developed bullshit detector in the class.
In reality, though, reading became a part of my life, and becomes a part of the lives of so many others, much earlier than this. It begins with children's books, like ""The Phantom Tollbooth"" or ""The Little Prince."" These are books of fantasy our parents might have read to us when we were little, or that we first turned the pages of ourselves when someone showed us how the library worked in fourth grade.
I remember going up to the school librarian when I was little and asking if there were any good books about dragons, yet thinking about any dragons outside of the ""Lord of the Rings"" trilogy makes me cringe today.
Even though I read a lot then, there are barely any connections between my tastes as a child and my tastes now. Like a WSUM DJ who listened to Smash Mouth in middle school, my tastes have grown along with my body, and I consider ""The Catcher in the Rye"" the point where they went through puberty and I became a reading adult.
Through my years of bad taste, however, I did develop something else that stays with me until this day: an avid love of reading.
Some critics make moves to defend children's books as good and proper literature, citing novels like ""Maniac Magee,"" which may be a kids' book but still moves readers young and old better than ""Anna Karenina."" Although this is commendable, I don't think it really gets to the point.
Although children's books may or may not be considered ""good"" by the adults who rarely read them, the real significance of them is that they represent a doorway to literature for young people growing interested in the rest of the world. I still have about 20 books from the ""Goosebumps"" series in my bookshelf at home, and don't even get me started on ""The Baby-sitters Club.""
No matter how hilariously awful those choose-your-own endings were, they got me to ditch some of my prized Nickelodeon-watching time for the written word.
I hate it when book snobs sneer at Harry Potter for exactly this reason. No matter how badly they think J.K. Rowling's books are written, if these people cared at all about the survival of literature they should worship Harry Potter for introducing reading to kids at the age when they are most likely to develop other hobbies. Obviously quality is important in literature, but when it comes to children's books, getting people interested is what counts.
In an age where most kids entertain themselves with video games, children's books are more important than ever in the intellectual development of the younger generation. Kids may start out with ""Goosebumps,"" but eventually their solid reading habits just may lead them to ""The Catcher in the Rye.""
Are you a typical student whose taste in books never graduated from ""Goosebumps?"" E-mail Frances listing the reasons why you hate reading at provine@wisc.edu.
