Slashdot Mirror
Playstation Lures Kids Into Libraries
Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to an ICWales article reporting the latest consoles are being used to attract children into libraries, apparently "..to dispel their image as scary, boring places." This measure, being tried in some libraries in Wales, may "..make the youngsters recognize that libraries are places for enjoyment, leisure and information", according to a local librarian. However, Welsh politician Valdo Funning was more dismissive, saying: "I was brought up with Treasure Island and Wordsworth and all the great poets, and it gave me a love of those which I still have today at 67. Literature gives you a lifetime of pleasure. I wouldn't have that if I had been playing on a PlayStation."
Also- going back to the original subject- games in libraries.
Where do you think a child is more likely to pickup a taste for reading- at a library, or at home- where when the Playstation (I prefer Xbox, but I don't want to compete here) goes off, Ricki Lake comes on.
Getting their little butts in the door might be half the battle, one they (library people) are trying to win with a Playstation. Hey- ya gotta try something.
Go into almost any library today, and see what is drawing people in- for my local library the biggest draw is the Internet. The Internet may not be literature, but it is filled with facts (?!?!), communication, and interesting things to look at/read. In my town it also serves those who don't have a connection at home, keeping them somewhat up to date on what is happening out there on the great information superhighway.
Adding technology to the library is not the same as turning their back on the printed word, they are just trying to augment their services to bring people in.
Besides, one day some kid might be waiting for a Playstation, and pick up a book (possibly Treasure Island) maybe he will become a game designer, and create some game based on that one book he read way back when...
No reason to lie.
get rid of that awful Robert A. Heinlein (he encourages bloody revolutions and polygamy!) and J.D. Salinger (Catcher in the Rye? More like Catcher in the Sin) and William Shakespeare (Sex, murder, psychopaths).
While I do agree with your point, to liken these authors and their works to garbage such as DOA:X and the multitude of PSX games that simply allow players to act out adolescent fantasies is to do a great disservice to the authors you mentioned. Their works, despite the 'rough' presentation, have a message, and challenge the reader intellectually. The likes of BMX:XXX do no such thing.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
8) I guess that would be one good strand to the bow.
What one tries to do is widen the horizons and show the young person that there is more to the world than their immediate, uninspiring surroundings, hopefully showing them a more constructive method of expression and maybe even turning the overal picture from despair to hope.
The destructive urge is often "no-one listens to me". Sadly a translation of this can often mean "one person in particular doesn't take no for an answer and I want it to stop".
Put this individual in a peer group with personal status and their inner rage can provide all sorts of fun.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
OK, I'll bite. You said: Aesthetically, the games played on computers are pretty pitiful compared to the classics of literature.
How about this:
Aesthetically, the fruit you can buy in the grocery store is pretty pitiful compared to the classic dishes made in my favorite French restaurant downtown.
It's a meaningless statement, as was yours. There is a time and place for both things, and your concept of aesthetics is either flawed or so superior to the rest of us, that it needs no explanation or support whatsoever. And I'm leaning pretty strongly toward the former.
Eh, not true. I wouldn't have discovered I loved books, if I didn't get suckered into reading by various tricks, now I read foraciously while my peers sit in dark rooms playing crappy sequals all day. How would you know if you love Wordsworth unless you experienced him? How could I want to read Wordsworth BEFORE exporsure? Some odd a priori literary knowledge?
My mom making me like books, and exposing me to library programs planted a seed, I didn't go there on my own seeking to read the meager philosophy section, I had to realize its existance first. I had to start by finding out I loved bad old sci-fi (such as Clifford Simak), then discovered the natural science section while researching something I discovered in a book. Then moved on to bigger and deeper books, on EVERYTHING. All because someone planted a love of books in my, and the knowledge of the existance of the great body of literature out there, on everything.
If I would have never left the confines of my Nintendo and my C-64 I probably wouldn't know half of what I know now, I'd probably (to be honest) be dumber than shit.
Mr. Man does make a mistake though, his all or nothing approach. Just because I game, does not mean that I do not also read. I game like mad, but I also read alot (right now I'm crawling my way through everything Jung has wrote). Video games do not necissarily[sic] rot your brain, the potential is there. But it is also there in books, some people I know ONLY read they never get out and apply what they read, they never leave the house. They are as sick as said kid sitting in a dark room playing crappy sequals.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey