According to English Composition II, there are immature readers and mature readers. Escapist fiction (immature) and interpretative (mature)
The objective is to entertain.
The emphasis is on action.
The characters are simple.
They have happy endings.
The objective is to entertain and give insight into the human experience.
The characters are more defined.
They have indeterminate ending.
This ticks me off to no end. Because I want to read a story that has a happy ending I'm considered immature? Well, if liking fairy tales is immature, then liking (insert whatever interpretive novel here) means you're morbid and pessimistic.
Don't give me the "it's realistic" crap. The Bible's true and there's a lot of stuff in there that's not realistic that blows the mind away.
Real and realistic don't mean the same thing. Who'da thunk it?
I fail to see how being escapist is immature. I don't mind saying I'm an escapist reader. That's why I read, to escape. I love the written word and I love a good story.
I love a good story with a plot. Stephen R. Lawhead would most likely be considered escapist, because his books usually have happy endings, his characters are developed and undergo change, and the stories are action-packed. AND THEY HAVE PLOTS! But you know what, when I'm done with one of his books, I feel like a better person for having read it. When I read Ernest Hemingway, I have to wonder what the point of the story was and wonder why in the world is he considered a Great One. And I don't care what my textbook says, those stories don't have a plot. They are vignettes to me. Just a scene out of some imaginary character's life.
No plot = no story
Okay, I think I'm done. Goodnight, and God bless.