Hi all. It seems there are alot of us that love children's lit so I thought it would be neat to start a thread just for that subject. What are some of your favorite books?

Mary

Oh, so many to list:

1. Winnie-the-Pooh
2. The Jolly Pocket Postman
3. Kipper the Dog
4. Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys
5. The Wind in the Willows

Hi Wanda. Great that you dropped by. I was getting lonely. LOL! Winnie-the-pooh is on my list too. Charlotte's Web is a favorite. So is Old Yeller.

Mary

I would like to point out that Charlotte dies, as does Ol' Yeller. Aren't there any HAPPY children's books out there?

I like Anne of Green Gables and Holes.

Camerandi wrote: "I like Anne of Green Gables and Holes."

Camerandi, have you seen Holes (the movie)? It's pretty funny/good.

No. I'll have to see it. Thanks for the information.

Oh I like Winnie the Pooh too! And Alice in Wonderland. :)

PDXReader wrote: "I would like to point out that Charlotte dies, as does Ol' Yeller. Aren't there any HAPPY children's books out there?"

Kim...Have you read The Miraculous Journey of Edward Tulane? It's wonderful....

Shelli

Hi Shelli - No, I've never come across that one. I'll have to put it on my list. (No one dies, right? No animals are injured or put in any danger whatsoever?)

PDXReader wrote: "Hi Shelli - No, I've never come across that one. I'll have to put it on my list. (No one dies, right? No animals are injured or put in any danger whatsoever?)"

Correct, it's about a ceramic rabbit doll which goes on an unintended series of adventures and meets new people. Written by Kate DiCamillo, one of my favorite kids authors. She also did Because of Winn-Dixie, which is delightful, too, and also involves no deaths.

I would note, however, that in about book 3 of the Anne of Green Gables series that Matthew dies, so if you're looking for stories which have no deaths I'd read only the first one.

Has anyone here ever read a series of kids books set, I believe, in Holland, where the characters are 3 boys whose parents run a bakery. The boys names are Snip, Snap, and Snur. We all loved them when we were quite young.

Shelli wrote: "PDXReader wrote: "I would like to point out that Charlotte dies, as does Ol' Yeller. Aren't there any HAPPY children's books out there?"

Hi PDXReader. I'm aware that the two books I mentioned at main characters that died. Sorry. I love all Dr. Seuss books. My sister had "Green Eggs and Ham," memorized when she was little. If my mom changed one line my sister would have a fit. My mom did it on purpose sometimes to get my sister to fill in the right line.

Mary

Popularandi wrote: "I like Anne of Green Gables and Holes."

I also like holes :)

Hi Shelli. My husband bought my daughter "The Miraculous Journey of Edward Tulane." She didn't like it. Maybe I should read it. I love the cover of the book.

Mary

One of my favourite books when I was In desert and wilderness, by Henryk Sienkiewicz.
It's an adventure book about two children who are kidnapped in Suez and take to Khartum, and then have to cross the desert on their own to be able to go back home.
It's such a wonderful story, full of adventure and exotic places, and writen by a Nobel Prize winner. What else can one ask for?

1. The Silver Skates by P. J. Stahl
2. Little Princess by Frances Hogdson Burnett
3. Little Women, by Louisa May Alcott
4. The Nancy Drew series
5. Maroussia, by P.J. Stahl

I read:

Charlottes Web
Narnia
The Hardy Boys
Encyclopedia Brown
Judy Blume and Beverly Cleary.


(God lord, Beverly Cleary is a) still alive and b) 93??)

I remember reading:

The Little Prince
Wizard of Oz series
National Velvet
The Black Stallion
Huckleberry Finn
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
Treasure Island

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Heidi. That was a favorite for me and I've continued to re-read it about every 5-8 years.

You are right, I forgot it. I read all the books of the serie too!

All of the Little House on the Prairie Series and the Anne of Green Gables series as well as Louisa May Alcott's books are some of my favorite kids books. I was also a fan of Nancy Drew, Beverly Cleary, and Judy Blume as well as the Sweet Valley High books.

Hi Angela. This thread is bringing back such great memories. I read all of the "Litte House," books. But do you know neither of my daughters would read them. I guess times have changed. I love Beverly Cleary and Judy Blume too.

Mary

Hi Barbara. Heidi is a great choice. I really think I read that book when I was young but I just can't remember. I know I've seen the movie.

mary

Nathaniel wrote: "I read:

Charlottes Web
Narnia
The Hardy Boys
Encyclopedia Brown
Judy Blume and Beverly Cleary.


(God lord, Beverly Cleary is a) still alive and b) 93??)"

Hi Nathaniel. I loved the "Encyclopedia Brown," books. I would never have remembered them if you hadn't of listed them. I'm getting old and my memory is going. LOL! Okay, I'm only 45 but I still don't remember all of things. Having kids takes away your brain cells.

Mary

My fave childrens books:

Black Beauty
Heidi
Little Women
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Wind in the willows
What Katy Did

and I love Beatrix Potter especially the illustrations!

and I love Beatrix Potter especially the illustrations!

I loved Beatrix Potter too, Maggie. Another one I forgot to mention was "The Velveteen Rabbit".

I forgot about Encyclopedia Brown books, I read those all the time, I loved them. I also read Choose Your Own Adventure books a lot. I also had a book about General Armstrong Custer that I read about five times and I wish I could remember the title of that book now.

Here is my list in no particular order:
Charlotte's Web
Shiloh
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
Holes
Series of Unfortunate Events
James and the Giant Peach
Peter Pan

I like Harry Potter as well, but considering the books are so popular for all ages, I left it off the list.

Roald Dahl.

Very under appreciated.

Although parts of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang scarred me for life during my childhood.

I used to love the Bobbsey Twins and Trixie Belden.

Did anyone know that they are making Hardy Boy graphic novels? I just ordered one for a patron.

Nathaniel wrote: "Roald Dahl.

Very under appreciated.

Although parts of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang scarred me for life during my childhood. "

I used to love Roald Dahl i had loads of his books. My favs were James and the giant peach and BFG :)

Sue --

RE: Hardy Boys Graphic Novels. Doesn't surprise me. I'm sure Nancy Drew will quickly follow, if it doesn't exist.

My paternal grandparents had a lot of the Bobbsey Twins and Hardy Boys and some Trixie Belden. In addition to getting along with my grandparents, I used to look forward to reading those books, and then I'd get to take one home.

I have several childhood favorites, and most of these I still read when I come across them. :p

The Giving Tree
Where the Sidewalk Ends
The Velveteen Rabbit
Corduroy
Seven Little Australians
Little Women
Green Eggs and Ham
Shiloh
Julie of the Wolves
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
Huckleberry Finn

Here are my favorites (that I can remember!)

Anne of Green Gables (series)
Dana Girls
Nancy Drew
Baby Sitters Club
Sweet Valley Twins
The Borrowers

There were also a couple of romance series aimed at tweens, but I can't remember the names. In one of the series, all the book titles were the first names of the heroines. Oh, and there was a romance version of Choose Your Own Adventure. Loved those! :)

Nathaniel wrote: "Roald Dahl.

Very under appreciated.

Although parts of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang scarred me for life during my childhood. "

Hi Nathaniel. I forget about Roald Dahl. Did you ever read "James and the Giant Peach?" Great book.

Mary

Sue wrote: "I used to love the Bobbsey Twins and Trixie Belden.

Did anyone know that they are making Hardy Boy graphic novels? I just ordered one for a patron. "

Hi Sue. That's awful. I loved The Hardy Boy books. This world is crazy I fear.

mary

Hi Mary,

I am not sure it is awful. Graphic novels of Proust's entire oeuvre are coming out (and even translated into English), some Moliere's plays have been put in graphic novels too. Because schools have been "dropping" the classics for many reasons, -one of the reasons being the difficulty of the language, too rich for contemporary students-, graphic novels allow for a major novel, play or children's lit book, to be still current and most importantly to be still read.
Images play an important role in our contemporary society: we need to use them too, make them a weapon of literacy, if we do not want less and less people reading less and less "complicated" books. I am sure Shakespeare's plays must exist in some graphic forms. I will look that up.
If a child reads a graphic novel, maybe he or she will want to know more and will read the original book. If a child reads a graphic novel, I am thinking: "At least he/she is reading something!"

Any kind of "adaptation for children" was forbidden in my home. The rule was, if you are not old enough to read the real thing, then grow up! There are plenty of books that are adequate for each group age, so I don't see the need of making stupid versions of the hard ones. Shakespeare plays stripped down of the arcaic language, and shortened for a fast reading are not really Shakespeare plays, so you are not really improving by reading them. Besides, what's the fun in reading if it's not a challenge?

I agree, but the world around us has changed. + a lot of children, when we were growing up, has dyslexia, or other learning difficulties, with aboslutely no help, and ended up dropping out of HS, never making it to University and therefore stolen of an decent education. Take graphic novels as learning tools, do not trash them. Some are extremely well done.
Have you actually READ Proust in English, in its entirety? I have read it in French, (I am French). It is not that the language is archaic, it is that for contemporary children and teenagers or young adults, the issues discussed are not interesting.
In the same way, I strongly encourage young reluctant readers to watch a movie adapted from a classic book in the eternal hope that it will "hook" them and that they waill want to read the original.
I have a son with Asperger, so it is not a question of being old enough and growing up. Please, be kind to children, otherwise they will hate reading even more!

I'm glad that nowadays there are tools to help children with learning disabilities that were not available when we were kids. And I agree, Proust is not interesting for children.
So, why make them read it? Is it going to become more interesting if you easy the language? There are books for all ages, for all interests and for all kinds of children. Let them read those, and when they are ready, they'll read harder stuff.
I think it's much easier to make readers of children if you give them Harry Potter than Proust, even if its Proust--The Graphic Novel. And when they are able to read the real thing, it's something much more valuable, because it was hard. It gives you a sense of achievment, or at least, that's how it worked for me. I would have felt cheated if they took that feeling away.

Is children's lit limited to children up to age 12? My idea of suggesting Proust of any classics was for age 14 to 18.

Sarah wrote: "Is children's lit limited to children up to age 12? My idea of suggesting Proust of any classics was for age 14 to 18."

I wouldn't limit children's literature or any kind of literature to any age. If a 12-year-old enjoys Dickens, good. If they'd rather read Enid Blyton, that's good too, in my opinion. The point I was trying to make, not very successfully, was that I think that by making hard books easier we are not helping the reader. If you are going to make Moliere as easy as The Famous Five, I'd rather read The Famous Five--at least they are the real thing, not some anonimous editor's idea of what Moliere would have written if he were aiming it at young readers.
The classics remain through time because they are great. I don't see the point on making them small.

Graphic novels have been a point of contraveresey for several years. Are they a genre of their own, or just another term for comic books. Personally, I find that they serve two purposes. The first is that some of the art, especially the Manga, are something that many students attempt to replicate on their own. From this stand point, they foster creativity not only in their drawings, but also have gotten students to create their own storylines as well.
Secondly, they do enhance literacy. Especially with students that have reading difficulties. It allows them to comprehend the story without feeling lost or behind their classmates. Graphic novels also are "hooks" to gain students' interest in a book. Would I rather see children read a classic novel? Obviously I would, but if this engages their curosity, and perhaps gets them to read the original, then I'm all for it.
Also, don't forget: Many graphic novels, and comic book characters have been hitting the big screen for several years. If the stories weren't good, we wouldn't be paying millions of dollars to watch them.

Thanks, Mark!

Mark wrote: "Graphic novels have been a point of contraveresey for several years. Are they a genre of their own, or just another term for comic books. Personally, I find that they serve two purposes. The fir..."

Mark....I agree with you...good answer!
Shelli

I have nothing against graphic novels. Not my piece of cake, but they don't bother me. I was talking about adaptations of classic works, in any format. For me, that's like using cheats on video-games: takes all the fun away.

I have 2 sons who don't find reading "fun" at all. My 19 year old is reading the 7th Harry Potter for the second time right now, but it is rare for him to read, unless he has to for school...same goes for my 16 year old. I agree with Mark that anything that "hooks" kids or gets them interested in reading is a good thing. My biggest thing is reading should be enjoyable. If reading something difficult is enjoyable for some...great...if others prefer to read things that come more easily..that's great too. I myself don't get hung up on reading "great works" if they are not enjoyable to me. I did not enjoy the classic..Middlemarch to read. I quit after 200 pages. I did however enjoy the story in the DVD format.

Shelli, I competely agree. I have two sisters that do not read as much as I do. The younger one got hooked on Harry Potter and that started her reading. The middle sister liked Harry potter as well but had to use audio books as she followed along with the books. (she is def not a natural reader). As Twilight came out my mom and I read the books. we got the youngest sister to read them fine but it took awhile for my middle sis to pick up the books. When she did she read them I was amzing to watch how quickly she got through the books.
Both sisters have gone on to read more "meaty" books including Gone with the wind, Pride and prejudice, and the Historian. and all because they started with a girl falling in love with a vampire. :)

My point is, would you have enjoyed much more a stripped-down version of Middlemarch? To get your sons to read you didn't give them War and Peace-The Graphic Novel, but Harry Potter. Like Lacy's sisters, they might move on to heavier stuff. The best thing about books is that there are books for every kind of people, if you don't like one you can drop it and try something else. But, for me, a new version from a classic book is something new from a different author, so I don't feel like I'm getting the real thing.

Actually, they give War and Peace to read to teenagers in France and in Russia. The graphic novel does not exist, as far as I know, but it would be helpful for some teenagers whose school systems do not include compulsory foreign history up to 12th grade like it is the case in both France and Russia.

The thing is, current pedadogical research shows that for scores of students (whatever their age) an audio or a visual aid can enhance and facilitate learning.

Is it better to suppress or create an obstacle to a human being's learning on the pretext that whatever he or she is reading is "not the real thing" or is it better to applaud their efforts in trying hard at learning, or discovering, in their own ways, with helpful means, the great literary master pieces?

BTW, is not "Master Piece Theater" - on public TV, WETA- a great visual help through their adaptations of literary works? Or shall we dismiss it because it is not "the real thing"?

In the same vein, for those who have children's Bibles at home, are they concerned that their children are not getting the "real thing" because of the abridged texts (or simplified) or because there may be illustrations? I am curious.