The last foothold for the untalented?

All writing is creative and good to at least one person. I read Lord of the Rings and War and Peace (never finished it) I was bored and they are great writers but I have read a lot of unknown writers stuff and I find them great. Books are like meals - takes time to make a feast but if you haven't time - a quick take-a-way is just as good - if you get my drift. Jeez - am rambling again!

.

I would point out, AG that I never had any problem with log-ins when the old site was in use, suggesting to me that the problem IS with the new site. As to whether you are one of those I would like to see stifled, you flatter yourself.

Well, gee, Missi, consider my hand slapped. I'm so grateful. I would point out that I, too, had no trouble with the 'old' site, and that Explorer only gave me problems with the 'new' site; therefore, there is some inextricable link between Explorer on my computer, and the coding or whatever for the new site. However, Mozilla seems to have no problems with the 'new' site, so maybe it's Explorer that is the trouble.

The Three Billy Goats Gruff Hear my music: http://music.download.com/3600-5-100795586.html

I'm glad other people are having this problem. I thought it was just me. I haven't been able to access this thread for three days, since I last posted. Or rather I've been able to access it but not to view any subsequent comments past my own. I thought ABCtales had just frozen on this thread, leaving it at the top of the list with no replys. Before deciding to buy my books you can view the first chapters for free by visiting: www.pabd.com/2004/books/cab_driver www.pabd.com/2005/books/its_been_emotional

And why do threads just disappear? I started a thread yesterday afternoon and it's no longer around. There were no offensive words or views in it, just a simply thread wondering how long other users have been members of ABCtales. Has it disappeared into the ether? Will it ever come back? Can other users see it but not me? What's going on? Before deciding to buy my books you can view the first chapters for free by visiting: www.pabd.com/2004/books/cab_driver www.pabd.com/2005/books/its_been_emotional

Your thread is still here Karl.

To say that the problem is with Explorer is tantamount to saying that ABC is right and the most widely used web browser on the planet is wrong! I beg your pardon? I know that Steve Jobs thinks that HIS computers are the REAL ones and PC's are poor imitations but in this area might is right. Why should everyone HAVE to change their browser simply because one program out of several million happens to be incompatible? Why does it have to be incompatible with Explorer? The previous versions weren't. It's not only the incompatability that's a problem, there are several other retrograde steps in this version, eg. no author search, no thread search, no permanent log-in, etc. By the way, don't be so hasty with your gratitude, your American reading of my comment is wide of the mark!

Now that's the weitd thing, George. It's not there. So from where you sit, you can see it. But from where I sit, it's not there at all. Wheres it hidden? Has ABCtales got too complicated for me? For no apparent reason I had another thread just wiped off the board a couple of weeks ago, but is it possible that both these threads are actually still there but in some kind of parrallel universe? Some times I'm able to shift forces and actually dip into this parrallel universe, but at other times it's lost to me. Could another slip in the equilibrium of this planet cause me to lose all forum topics and find myself replying to comments from three years ago? Whatever, from where I sit now, in whatever dark antimatter of the cosmos I find myself in, it's not there . Before deciding to buy my books you can view the first chapters for free by visiting: www.pabd.com/2004/books/cab_driver www.pabd.com/2005/books/its_been_emotional

Oh, I read it loud and clear, Missi, no cultural misunderstandings there. I've lived in this country long enough and argued with you long enough, I think... I agree about the other glitches on the site, by the way... and I've found Mozilla to be much better than Explorer by a long shot. But it was just a suggestion.

I've been using Mozilla for several months and find it dramaticallys superior to OE. And I've never had a problem with the threads, logging in, etc since using Mozilla, though that was not the reason I original tried Mozilla. In fact, I was having a serious problem with another site I frequent after they had made some changes and the suggestion was to switch to Mozilla. In their case the problem was speed, not logging in . Mozilla solved the speed problem. It sails! You can easily import all your OE favorites and login cookies to Mozilla. After downloading, the whole process would take about 60 seconds. Shameless plug for Warsaw Tales, available at www.new-ink.org

My husband read the Dan Brown thing from beginning to end and said it was crap (he always finishes books once he's started, which I find bizarre, but never mind). But the irritation with the success of the Harry Potter books always puzzles me. They are CHILDREN'S BOOKS. No matter what criticisms adults come up with about the quality of writing, JK Rowling had kids engrossed with books in front of their noses for a considerable amount of time. She must have been doing something right and that should be worth a few brownie points, surely. As to the original question, I think there's sometimes an element of writers writing purely because they like the sound of their own voices. Whether they expect others to appreciate that voice as much as they do or not, comes down to confidence and very often over-confidence. On the whole though, I think it's a very brave thing to put pen to paper and then put it out for others to read. I enjoy writing but I don't post any of my stuff up here because I'm too chicken now that I know people on the site. I'd rather send it off to somewhere completely anonymous for feedback and if they tell me it's crap, I'm quick to believe them.

I am in complete agreement with lou regarding J.K.Rowling, ANYTHING that encourages children to pick up a book and read is good. I suspect that a lot of the criticism directed at her is just sour grapes, who wouldn't like to be in her shoes! As for the IE/mozilla debate, we have both in our household. I use mozilla on my (poorly) laptop and my husband uses IE on his pc (which I am having to use for the foreseeable future). I have no problems with either and don't really find either one 'superior' in any way. I did encounter log in problems when the site first changed but that was rectified when Fingers waved his magic wand over something or other some time back.

"ANYTHING that encourages children to pick up a book and read is good." Oh, come on. That's like saying that kids gorging on junk food is good because at least they're eating. This is a silly argument perpetuated mostly by the publishing industry, who desperately want everyone to read more, and spooked citizens who believe all the Daily Mail rubbish about falling literacy rates and a generation lost to gory computer games. They might as well be playing Neopets or watching adult manga for all the good Harry Potter will do their development.

Have just downloaded Mozilla (although I agree with Missi that it is ridiculous that ABC is not compatible with the world's most popular browser...) and it works like a charm. And is quick as shit off a shovel. Nice.

The linux geek in me won't let me leave well alone. There are defined standards for html/css/etc. (see w3c.org) and IE is not nearly as good at keeping to them as firefox (although it's much better than it used to be). It is perfectly possible for abctales to be 'right' and IE to be 'wrong'. Although I doubt that's what causing anybody's problem unless they're using a very old version of IE. And it may be common, but it is not popular. Amoung people who actually realise they have a choice, I expect most use firefox, opera, or safari.

“Oh, come on. That's like saying that kids gorging on junk food is good because at least they're eating.” That’s not how I see it at all. Junk food isn’t good because it has no nutritional value and kids end up eating it *instead* of healthy food. I really don’t think a huge amount of children put down their more worthy children’s books (whatever they would be) to pick up Harry Pottter. I’m of the opinion (and I came to this opinion all on my very own) that reading for pleasure is habit forming. It may have been a coincidence of timing, but the Harry Potter books where the first books that Ellen got stuck into. Prior to that it was pretty much the odd, very short, jokey book or the dull reading books she brought home from school. Whether it was the initial hype around the books that got her started is irrelevant really. Some of them were pretty lengthy and the fact that they held her attention over all that time was quite unusual for a child who isn’t a natural at concentration. She didn’t bother with the last two because she had got bored by then and was on to Lemmony Snicket (it’s her sort of humour). The thing is, she now reads in bed every night. I don’t tell her to, she wants to – I’m sure some of the stuff she’ll read will be dross, but not all of it (at the moment we have to be a little vigilant because she’s started raiding our bookshelves). On the other tack, a friend of ours admits that he has never voluntarily read a book. The only books he has ever read were the ones he was made to read at school which he didn’t enjoy. He is far from unintelligent, but it just doesn’t occur to him that reading a book could be an enjoyable way to spend his free time.

So Jack, when you get round to having your super-intellectual children you will allow them to read what exactly? Dickens, Shakespeare, Milton? As the parent of 3 children, one who loves to read and absorbs absolutely everything in sight (from Shakespeare to 'horror of horrors' Harry Potter), another who can take it or leave it and a third who really hates to read (unless it's a Simpsons comic) I can assure you that a book that encourages 'book hating adolescents' to read rather than play on an x-box endlessly IS a good thing! I grew up reading the famous five and secret seven, I’m sure at some time or another intellectuals have flung their arms up in horror at Enid Blyton or whoever else was that years children's bestseller. As I'm now nearly finished a BA (hons) English degree I can't see that it did me any harm (I have also read all of the Harry Potter books and fully intend to read the next one too, I have certainly read much worse on this degree!) As for reading the Daily Mail, I never have...but I do know that since my eldest son went into year 10 in September they have only read ONE book in their English class. I also have to push endlessly for my daughter to bring books home from school and to actually read them to anyone whilst at school. Luckily she has a reading age of 11 (she's actually 7) and reads constantly at home so I don't have to worry as much as some other parents such as several that I know whose children are still unable to read properly at 7. Literacy rates falling? I can't say categorically because I’m no expert, just a parent...where do you get your expertise on the subject from Jack?

I wholeheartedly agree, camus. I'm grateful that my son reads anything and everything (he particularly likes Roald Dahl - his sort of humour...) and hope to encounter the same interest in the youngest, who at this point is more interested in watching 'Doodle Do' on Ceebeebies. Reading is a lifelong interest to be nurtured and encouraged, even if it is the horrible HP (which I enjoyed more than my son did). And it's a heck of a lot cheaper than forking out for an Xbox so the kids can grow thumb muscles and square eyes.

An X-Box would be much better for the kids than Harry Potter. Both have pretty thin claims to aiding their learning or intelligence, but at least an X-Box can help them develop their social circles, due to the multiplayer options. Harry Potter is more likely to drive them to reclusiveness, as they dream of being whisked to a land where they succeed at every challenge and have a special destiny. If, however, you can't get away from the foolish twin equations of reading=intelligence and gaming=stupidity, then there are tonnes of better children's books. Lemony Snicket. Roald Dahl. Ted Hughes. Diana Wynne Jones. Jill Murphy (whose Worst Witch books are very similar in concept to Harry Potter, but wittier, nowhere near so ponderously long, and featuring a far more engaging and likeable protagonist.) You can't react to every bout of Rowling criticism by asserting that the critic is either jealous of her, or thinks everyone should read 'literary' or intellectual fiction. She's a crap writer. Her books are mediocre. There are many, many better children's books - not more intellectual - just better. It's as simple as that.

I've got nothing against Harry Potter. I enjoyed the first three books but I do agree partly with Jack (before heading off in my own direction). I think the idea that reading is a good thing in itself - irrespective of what's being read - is ridiculous and ultimately quite snobbish. I don't accept that JK Rowling is any more proficient in opening people's minds to new possibilities than the people who make Sony Playstation's. I think the mental sharpness needed to negotiate the next level of the average hit Playstation game is considerably greater than what you'd need to guess the next next plot twist in a Harry Potter or Enid Blyton book. I don't object to parents thinking that a mixture of reading and computer games is better for their kid's personal development than just playing computer games but I think this is a lifestyle choice rather than a position with any logical basis in terms of the actual effects of either activity.

“I think the idea that reading is a good thing in itself - irrespective of what's being read - is ridiculous and ultimately quite snobbish.” I don’t think anyone was saying that, where they? I, for one, was saying that getting into a habit of reading for pleasure, by whatever means, is a good thing because you get to read the good stuff too (I know ‘good’ is subjective) I’ve always been under the impression that much can be gained from reading, (whether it’s entertainment, insight, information or merely an extension of vocabulary). I honestly don’t know what effects playing on playstations are having on my kids’ development, except that they’re getting very good at the games they are playing. But anyhow, the two activities are totally different – why shouldn’t they be encouraged to do both, unless you feel there is no benefit in reading? (And… and… and… *starts tapping finger on table*... Snobbish? Where on earth did class come into it? My parents didn’t have a proverbial pot to piss in when they were growing up but they were avid readers then and still are now. Playstation games cost the earth.)

It's possibly to be intellectually snobbish. And I do think there's an element of that when the implication is made that reading books somehow broadens and enlightens the mind to a greater degree than other mediums. I would say film, as a whole, does a better job of that, though there are still things books can do that film can't. And, as I say, I can't accept that reading a naff book is somehow a sign of a child developing, learning or opening their mind, any more than playing a random first-person shooter is. Nor do I think it's any kind of 'slippery slope' to better books. But yeah, nothing wrong with a good mixture of all.

I'm afraid I must draw the line at computer games, assuming that's what an Xbox is primarily all about. A child must be better off reading Harry Potter than putzing around with some stupid computer game. Mind you, I've never done either--but then again, I'm also no longer a child. Shameless plug for Warsaw Tales, available at www.new-ink.org

Jack, you are missing the point completely. It is nothing to do with snobbishness or even intellect. The ability to read is of vital importance to every child, some children, for example my niece and my middle son show very little or no interest in reading...both as a result are terrible at spelling and although intelligent are behind the average for their reading ages...However, both of them quite happily pick up a Harry potter book and read, are you saying that this is wrong? That as parents we should snatch the evil spawn of Rowling from their grasp and replace it with something you class as better? Children NEED to read, they do not NEED to know how to kill everything on halo 2 or how to make Woohoo on sims 2. Perhaps when you have children of your own your views will change when you discover what stubborn little buggers they really are, that they won't be told that Roald Dahl or Lemony Snickett etc etc are any better than the book that they WANT to read.

I had a great collection of 1950s comics to read when I was a kid, courtesy of my mum's then-boyfriend. I read those things until they fell apart (much to my chagrin; I could've sold them on Ebay twenty years later for a goldmine!): Looney Tunes, mostly, and a Conan the Barbarian (obviously a later vintage!) mysteriously tucked in amongst them. Were they as intellectually brilliant as Roald Dahl or Ted Hughes? Hardly. Did I love reading them? You bet. I'm not sure I buy the idea that multi-user computer games encourage social development, any more than I buy the idea that a love of reading turns one into a recluse.

"I'm afraid I must draw the line at computer games, assuming that's what an Xbox is primarily all about." It is. But seeing as you say you've never played one, I don't really see how you can have an opinion that isn't second-hand, so drawing a line is a bit rich. I don't play games much these days, having very little money, but there's nothing more fatuous than a kneejerk 'games can't possibly be as good as a book' line of argument. "However, both of them quite happily pick up a Harry potter book and read, are you saying that this is wrong?" If the case is as you say it is, then I'll relent to an extent. I can't argue that reading doesn't improve literacy at an early age, and if your children don't read much, it's useful that one of the current crazes is for a series of books. *But*, I can't accept that it's Rowling herself who is engaging children, or that she is to be in any respected for somehow 'turning' children on to reading. There's absolutely nothing in her books that suggests she's better at this than other children's authors, so I think what you've got to thank is a combination of marketing and phenomena. But as soon as you get beyond basic literacy, it is junk. I'm sorry, but whenever I hear the 'at least it gets kids reading' line, I take it to mean that someone is thankful it is making them into nice, scholarly little urchins and turning them away from the dark side of games and TV. It sounds like a wicked witch saying, "Ze spell is verking! Soon ze children vill be under my control!"

I'm just wondering if any research has been done on whether reading copious amounts keeps children out of trouble. I mean, you don't hear about high school shootings by kids who've just finished the second Eragon book, while you -do- hear about kids who play violent computer games having a greater tendency toward violence as a solution of sorts. I'm not being facetious; I'm genuinely wondering. Does anyone know? Is it just a media-influenced connection?

Speaking only for myself, I really do find you amusing, Jack...

I'm not sure there's anything wrong with having nice, scholarly little urchins who avoid the 'dark side' of TV and computer games...

No, but there's something deeply wrong with presuming that this is a superior state for them to be in.

It's a superior state for them to be in when you're their parent, believe me...

I'm sure it's easier to handle, but you've got to baulk at the idea of a parent pressurising their child to be bookish when they're not that kind of person, in the same way you would at the idea of someone pressurising a bookish kid to do well at sport.

As a fan of all three, I have to say that reading engages the imagination far more that movies or computer games. The horror is the idea that children will grow up believing that reading is no fun, then they will never read either proper worthwile literature (whatever that is) or a newspaper, and they will be lesser human beings for that. I don't know how realistic a fear that is, but the popularity of harry potter certainly aint doing any harm. And the first four books kept me up later at night, however poorly written, they were not dull.

I enjoyed Harry Potter, but the book I read before it was The Victorian House by Judith Flanders. I read anything and everything that takes my fancy. But when I was young....a very long time ago, I was concerned with sport and other matters and rarely picked up a book of any kind that wasn't required by my school work, even then it was under protest. When I started work I realised that most of the information I was going to need would be found in books of one kind or another. Surprise surprise I found it difficult to concentrate on reading a book for any length of time. I realised why my English teacher had kept on about the need to be able to read a wide and varied range of books. I wished I had. I encouraged all my children to do just that and they had more sense than I. Result is that all their houses are full of books across an enormous range of subjects, one of them has become a successful published author. They all buy lots of books for their children. So Harry Potter and all the other good bad or indifferent books all have a job to do. I hope they go on doing it for ever. Long live the printed word...whatever it says.

"I'm just wondering if any research has been done on whether reading copious amounts keeps children out of trouble." It certainly worked for Mark Chapman.

I learned to read from comic books: Turok Son of Stone was a favorite. My mother read them to me over and over until I could read them myself and find the words in the dictionary. Nothing wrong with comic books. As for computer games, I have played them in the past and found them to be a silly waste of time. It is not necessary for me to play each new computer game that hits the market to confirm what I already know: I hate computer games. Shameless plug for Warsaw Tales, available at www.new-ink.org

I learned to read from comic books: Turok Son of Stone was a favorite. My mother read them to me over and over until I could read them myself and find the words in the dictionary. Nothing wrong with comic books. As for computer games, I have played them in the past and found them to be a silly waste of time. It is not necessary for me to play each new computer game that hits the market to confirm what I already know: I hate computer games. Shameless plug for Warsaw Tales, available at www.new-ink.org

Nothing wrong with hating computer games. I just don't think you can say that Harry Potter is a better use of time. Personally, as a fan of all three (like Maddan), I don't think anything beats film. There's nothing from which I can get so much so easily. Books are different, but I struggle with them these days, and prefer things to be kept quite short. Games are fun and inspiring - my favourite ones far more so than a bad book.

Of course you can't enjoy a good book if you're not properly dressed... or, at least you might not be able to borrow one. A Swedish school library is refusing to lend books to pupils if their underwear is showing. Pupils of Tullbro School in Falkenberg do not have to wear a uniform but librarians are clamping down on some teenage fashions. Children who wear hipsters which show off their underwear are not allowed to borrow books.

I think that reading anything at all is a better use of one's brain than computer games; not that there's anything wrong with computer games if you want to tune out and switch off (God knows I love playing Caesar III), but it's not the same kind of brainwork as reading. The stuff one absorbs while reading sticks to the brain in a way that film and games just can't. But MiniClip does have some fun games, I'll admit...