lol- I guess I'll go with yes- but I can't say for sure, since I haven't laid eyes on one since first grade.

Well, it certainly can be confusing! I can recall more than one instance, in my book-selling days, in which the two were confused, by either customer or employee. As for myself, I've read Betsy-Tacy, and greatly enjoyed it, although I haven't had a chance to get to the subsequent titles. Soon! I've never read any of the Haywood books, although I have been curious. I take it they come with your recommendation, Salma?

That's right- it's the Carolyn Haywood ones I'm talking about! But I think I read the ones that Chandra mentions as well...it's just that the Carolyn Haywood ones stick out in my mind because they were some of the first books I loved. Thanks for clearing that up!

Salma & Chandra: I believe you two are referencing different "Betsy" series. Chandra is discussing the Besty~Tacy books by Maud Hart Lovelace, which feature two (and then three) little girls growing up in Deep Valley, Minnesota, in the early part of the 20th century.

The books you're thinking of, Salma, are the "Betsy" titles by Carolyn Haywood, beginning with "B" Is for Betsy (originally published in 1939). This series includes Betsy and Billy, about Betsy and her best-friend Billy, and Betsy's Little Star, about Betsy's new baby sister, Star.

Salma - I'm not sure if that's the same or not - I just started the series. It starts with Tacy moving in across the street from Betsy and they become fast friends. (after one rather funny misunderstanding) They both have older sisters, but it is just the start of the series. They are really really precious. Several years ago I had the series recommended to me based on my interest in LMM, but I was skeptical. Then I noticed that several of my wonderful goodreads friends had read them and enjoyed them so I decided to give them a go, but only when I could share them with Izzy. It's a bit of a different world than Anne's world - they are little girls that live across the street from each other and their days (so far) mainly consist of them getting together and pretending. They happen to live in a very idyllic rural type setting where kidnapping is not a concern and they wander all over together. Sadly, I can't imagine letting my 5 year old wander around with her little friend from across the street.

i remember having a great conversation with my niece (who will soon be 21) bak when she was about 10 or 12. I had, with great anticipation, bought her AoGG for a birthday and was so excited to read it with her and hear her comments 9she's a red head, too). Much to my disappointment, she HATED it, thought the characters were stupid and uncool. Although she didn't use the word at the time, the characters were too naive and unworldly. I think that "innocence' is no longer considered a virtue, but rather a burden that needs to be purged as soon as possible. Everything is about being cool and world weary - which AoGG definitely is not.

I don't really have anything to add to this conversation, I just wanted to point out that I had trouble finding the books when I was coming up in the late 80s/early 90s. My library (which was really the only place I got books) only had the first one or two Anne books. That was it. But luckily, there was a little bookstore at the beach where we always went on vacation, that always had LMM's books. I always picked up two or three new ones when we went on vacation. So, for me, not seeing them on shelves isn't really anything new. It doesn't mean that I like it, but that's how it was for me too. I will say that I can't wait for my little girly cousin to get old enough to start reading these. I'll be buying up all the copies I can find for her! I just hope that I can find them!

Chandra- are you talking about the Betsy books where she has a little sister named Star and a friend named Billy- and then Tacy? I think there are a bunch of Betsy books out there, so I get confused.

If we're talking about the same ones- those are the books that got me hooked on reading in kindergarten! Well, that and Little House.

I think that the long and short of it is that regardless of time and place children have to be able to find something to grab ahold of, to relate to in other words. Obviously none of us have been swept off to Hogwarts (darn it!) but there is something in Harry's journey and friendships that speaks to us. I think it's the same with persistent classics like AoGG. Of course we will never be able to recapture those 'times', but Anne's experience is so relevant to the experience of all girls - wanting friendship and acceptance, getting into 'scrapes', etc. I always loved that Anne struggled with her vanity - let's face it, that's relatable ;-)

I think the same could be said of Little Women - on the surface their world does seem rather alien and old fashioned, but the story is a story that could happen in any time or place - sisters just trying to live and learn and love.

I'm currently reading Betsy-Tacy to my daughter and it is a (delightfully) old fashioned story. I find that some of the language is a bit of a stumbling block when reading to a very young child (for example: living in modern day Texas she has no concept what winter underwear are!) but, for the most part she really relates to the experiences of these two little girls - imagining and playing, etc.

Rachel- those are some great insights!

But here's my 2 cents: I think that it's more the characters' personalities rather than the moral lesson issues that have LM and Alcott collecting dust. Harry Potter (to use the most popular children's series of all time) deals with various moral issues, good v. evil, etc. and there's weddings/romance/babies in there too- but the characters are just regular people with their failings and positive qualities like everyone else.

But I think Alcott's characters were almost nauseatingly goody-two-shoes (Polly from Old-Fashioned Girl, for example, as much as I love that book). It's hard for children nowadays to relate to that, I think.

I don't think LM's characters are like that, but her books tend to rely on coicidences and events in the plots that are, frankly, unbelievable. And because today's children are definitely more precocious than yesteryear (I'm not sure yet if 'jaded' is the word I want to use), such twists may have them rolling their eyes.

For example- here are two plots from 2 LM short stories-

1) A woman's daughter ran away from home with a 'bad boy' years ago and never contacts her parents again. In her distress, the woman has left her daughter's room exactly as it was for 15 years. One night a guest comes to the house and the woman tells her the sad story of her daughter. It so happens that in that exact minute, her daughter happens to wander into her old home's backyard that particular day because she's left her husband, and happens to hear her mother's story through an open window- happy reunion ensues.

2) A couple fights over something stupid, and for fifteen years (seems to be a magic number here) don't talk- but yet they don't break off the engagement or date other people. COme on, even in the early 1900s, something like that sounds unbelievable even for a short story.

Now of course I adore LM, otherwise I wouldn't be in this group, but I think it's little things like this that MAY be turning today's readers off of her.

Welcome, Rachel! Glad to have you with us at Kindred Spirits!

I agree that the perception of some classics - particularly those aimed at girls - is that they're overly sentimental and have little to say to today's children. Needless to say, I think that this is untrue, and it seems a shame that such ideas would keep young readers from discovering some truly entertaining books. Speaking as someone who reads a great deal of older children's fiction, I can definitely see that some titles just don't translate well over time. But books like Little Women or Anne Of Green Gables are classics (in my opinion) because they can speak to readers beyond their own era. They may be very much of the time they were written, in terms of style and narrative, but the issues raised are as relevant today as they ever were.

In Little Women you have a group of sisters whose father is off at war, whose family resources are stretched thin, and who must contend with all the difficulties related thereto, while also trying to find their place in the world, and in the family. I'm one of three daughters myself, and I've always thought that Alcott does an excellent job depicting the sibling rivalries amongst the March girls.

As for Anne Of Green Gables, here you have a story of a young orphan who, after she is lucky enough to find a home, must learn to control her impulses, and differentiate between the world of reality, and that of her imagination. It strikes me that these are almost universal childhood experiences...

I've just joined this group and this thread intrigues me. I was a huge Anne fan when I was about nine or ten (so about 2000) and I remember asking my grandparents to buy me the later books in the series for my Christmas, but only books 1 - 6 were in print in the UK! You can buy some of the Bantam books on Amazon (I think the first two Emily books and Pat of Silver Bush are available new) but the first few Anne books are all that I see in bookshops these days.

The reason I enjoyed reading old kids classics - Little Women, Anne of Green Gables, A Little Princess, The Railway Children - was that my mum and my grandma introduced me to them. I think that if parents don't encourage their kids to read what are considered "classics" then the kids aren't going to be inspired to read them - the word "classic" meaning to them "old-fashioned" and putting them off. I work a few mornings a week in my high school library and I never see books like AoGG or Little Women being checked out.

Another thing is that a lot of people consider books like AoGG to be preachy or sentimental or moralistic, because the characters learn a lesson at the end of the story. Personally, I don't think there is any point to a story if a character doesn't learn or overcome anything, but apparently this kind of thing is seen as "moralistic" and therefore unappealing to today's kids. Another off-putting thing seems to be the sugary-sweetness of books like AoGG and Little Women. Okay, I have to admit that I do like LMM because her books are the complete opposite of the Big Bad World but I woudln't consider them sugary sweet. After all, Anne is an orphan, is unwanted, is bullied and called ugly, and deals with the death of the father figure in her life. But yeah, people want to read about death and destruction, not weddings and babies.

I don't know whether this is true all across the world, but this is what I've observed in the UK.

Oh, and there is now a Coraline graphic novel (the drawings are gorgeous) but originally it only had a few drawings in it done by Dave McKean. You can still find the original in the kids section, along with the graphic novel. The adult version doesn't have drawings as far as I know. (I have the one with McKean's illustrations.)

I've read all of Gaiman's stuff except the second half of the Sandman series, Wolves in the Walls, and... something about Goldfish.

Stardust does/did have illustrations. You can still find the illustrated ones if you look hard. My parents got me one for Christmas 07. The Graveyard Book was really good. Better than Coraline I think. His adult books are sooo good too though.


I went into Borders today to specifically see what LMM they had. In YA they had 2, 4, and 5. In adult they had the 100th anniversary copy. That's it. You can order others through them, but that's all they have in the store. :(

I don't know that I'd really call it all cyclical, though I don't know what I would call it. My grandma and mom were able to get any LMM book they wanted growing up and that was in the 30s/40s and 60s. And then I was able to in the early 90s. It seems that really only now can you not find them as readily and that's sad. :(

Kathryn wrote: "Kathie--is there a version of STARDUST with illustrations? Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding. The version I read was a novel. I can see where it would be great with illustrations. I love..."

Yes, although there are print only copies now available, I believe the original had illustrations by Charles Vess:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/68004...

Kathie--is there a version of STARDUST with illustrations? Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding. The version I read was a novel. I can see where it would be great with illustrations. I loved the movie!!!

I was completely bowled over by Neil Gaiman's Stardust. My whole family went to see the movie because we loved the book so much. To call it a graphic novel is a misleading label. It's like an old-fashioned storybook. While you're reading it you'll forget it was published in the 20th/21st century. I think many purists who love comic books seek an increased respect for them & try to stick with the label "graphic novel." In the case of Neil Gaiman's Stardust, it was like the oversized storybooks I read when I was a little girl (& that I now read to my grandchildren). BTW, the movie was excellent too.

Salma wrote: "Is Coraline a graphic novel? I'm not crazy about those..."

No, Coraline is a children's novel, around 160 pages long. One of the reasons it took me so long to pick it up, was that I hadn't enjoyed Gaiman's Sandman, but I'm glad I gave it a chance...

Is Coraline a graphic novel? I'm not crazy about those...

I recently read and loved Coraline, and hope to read The Graveyard Book soon... I was less impressed with the first issue of his Sandman comic, but friends tell me I have to press on to get to the good stuff. We shall see...

Neil Gaiman hasn't struck my fancy just yet, but I've also only read one book by him - a picture book called Wolves in the Walls - just didn't do it for me. BUT I think Coraline looks fantastic and I can't wait to read it and see the movie. I don't know a thing about The Graveyard Book. I've had his American Gods on loan from a friend for almost a year and I haven't been inspired to pick it up yet!

BTW- I was just reading that Neil Gaiman got the Newbery Medal for "The Graveyard Book." Anyone read it?

I've tried reading his works for adults, but I couldn't get into them. I should try again though- if only because Tori Amos sings about him in "Tear in Your Hand." :-)

Kathryn wrote...Anybody else found anything?

The Willoughby's byLois Lowry, published 2008.

Summary: In this tongue-in-cheek take on classic themes in children's literature, the four Willoughby children set about to become "deserving orphans" after their neglectful parents embark on a treacherous around-the-world adventure, leaving them in the care of an odious nanny.

Me, All Alone at the End of the World by M.T. Anderson. Published 2005

Summary: A boy enjoys living quietly by himself at The End of the World until Mr. Constantine Shimmer, "Professional Visionary," builds an inn and an amusement park, demanding that tourists come and have "Fun Without End!".

It's A Wonderful Life For Kids by Jimmy Hawkins. Published 2006.

Summary: George and Mary Bailey's eight-year-old son Tommy gets some help from an angel-in-training named Arthur. Based on the movie "It's a Wonderful Life.".

Chandra wrote: "I really only see HP as a positive thing as well. My point (which may not have been very well expressed) is that children have a lot more choices these days and that the interest seems to have shi..."

No - I probably didn't read your post with enough care, Chandra! I'm looking back now and seeing that you mentioned more about thematic appeal (which I agree with), than actual availability of titles! Mea culpa! :)

Kathryn: It's funny you should mention The Penderwicks, because that was the example I chose in another recent conversation, to demonstrate that old-fashioned adventure stories, in which nothing traumatic happens, can still have immense appeal for children today. I tend to think that a well-written, well-told story will find readers, regardless of subject matter...

I am glad to see this post! I haven't noticed the bookstore trend since I already have all of the books myself, too, but I am distressed to hear about it--if not surprised. It's hard for me to imagine many of the girls at the high school where I work settling down to read about Anne or Emily. (Sadly, most of them don't even like to read!) However, for those who DO like to read, I think that perhaps the problem is that LMM is not really promoted anymore. As one of you pointed out earlier, kids seem to want to read what their friends are reading. (Okay, a lot of adults do, too!) Also, I wonder if the pressures of school today are also posing a threat--it seems more and more students and parents complain about the amount of homework which would certainly cut into pleasure-reading time. Some books are pushed in the schools and kids are exposed to them that way. I think even LITTLE WOMEN is probably much more widely read than LMM's books. So, if kids don't know they exist, and don't have much time to read let alone to browse bookstores or libraries and discover them, it seems bleak. However, I, too, do not think all is lost! :-)

It does make me wonder, though, whether any new books will be published that follow the same sort of sweet "old fashioned" threads as LMM's or even Alcott's books. As noted above, so much of what comes out now is dark-dark-dark and deals with mature themes. Not that there isn't a place for this, but it just is so overwhelming. That's one of the reasons that the only new YA novels I read tend to the fantasy realm. I wonder if this is part of the popularity right now, too--Harry Potter and such have a certain bit of old-fashioned-ness to them, even though they deal with some dark themes, it's not really the drugs/sex/divorce/depression that is so rampant in most contemporary lit. If kids don't want to read the "real" stuff, they can turn to fantasy. The closest newly published book I've come to capturing the flavor of LMM or Alcott, even a little, is The Penderwicks A Summer Tale of Four Sisters, Two Rabbits, and a Very Interesting Boy and that is geared to a younger audience. Anybody else found anything???

I love the Harry Potter series! I've listened to all of them on cd and they are fabulous. I was sad to finish the last one recently.

And yes, I think the shift is definitely towards fantasy. My youngest daughter (who's 6) loves me to read books about fairies to her.

I really only see HP as a positive thing as well. My point (which may not have been very well expressed) is that children have a lot more choices these days and that the interest seems to have shifted to more fantastical stories.

lol- I hope you're right.

BTW, Abigail- I'm curious- what's your opinion of Twilight?

While I agree that this trend is probably cyclical (and fervently hope that it is so!), I can't really agree with the idea that the Harry Potter "phenomenon" has had a negative impact on the availability of children's classics. As someone who's worked in the book business for over fifteen years, I can attest to the astonishingly good effect that HP has had on the children's literature scene. There has been a massive republishing trend, of ALL kinds of children's books, and many wonderful titles have been brought back into print, including many classics.

I think that this is partly owing to the realization on the part of publishers post-HP that they can make a lot of money with children's titles. One excellent example would be the New York Review Children's Collection, which has been reprinting second-string classics that are (undeservedly) out-of-print.

Of course, it is possible that interest in speculative fiction has temporarily eclipsed that in realistic fiction (be it contemporary or historical), but these kinds of obsessive trends tend to be short-lived.

Don't despair, Kindred Spirits! Whatever the current trends, I'm convinced that an author as brilliant as LMM won't be eclipsed forever! :)

Chandra wrote: "I think it's cyclical too (at least I hope it is). I think that the Harry Potter books did a lot of great things for YA lit, but I think the unintended consequence is that recently a lot of classi..."

I think you're right. LMM's books fall into the "realism" category. It seems that kids today are heavily involved in fantasy and vampires. I wonder if that goes along with the gaming culture.

I think it's cyclical too (at least I hope it is). I think that the Harry Potter books did a lot of great things for YA lit, but I think the unintended consequence is that recently a lot of classics have been pushed out of the way. It seems like stories of magic and vampires are in the highest demand right now. Kids are likely to read what their friends are reading and what is available. I'm not sure that little girls are reading Heidi, The Little Princess, A Secret Garden and/or The Little House books either. My belief/hope is that this style of story will eventually come back in style. Just as the popularity of vampires waxes and wanes I think stories about strong little girls do too.

It's true the stories seem old fashioned, but Anne Shirley is a strong female character. I think LMM was a bit of a feminist!

I would note, too, that despite the old-fashionedness of most of LMM's heroines and storylines, Anne Shirley has always been publicized as being a smart and active girl who's interested in more than boys and being pretty--the perfect sort of heroine for those liberated parents in the 70s and 80s to introduce to their daughters. I never thought of the resurgence of LMM's popularity in those terms, but I've definitely read those old reviews!

Abigail wrote: "April Ann: do you mean that sensibilities have changed between Montgomery's day and today, or between the late 70s/early 80s and today?

I meant between Montgomery's day. The 70's and 80's were in the wake of "women's lib". But, it may have been nostalgic for a lot of parents (like mine) in those decades who lived through the Great Depression and Montgomery's books were a "happy" distraction. So it's not surprising that they may have wanted to pass the love along.

I definitely think it's cyclical, and yes, the surge when so many of us were kids was probably related to the original TV-movie. That was SO popular at the time.

Before that, LM Montgomery had been old-fashioned for many years... probably the books will come back into print at some point in the future. Possibly there was even a point of oversaturation with all the short story collections.

April Ann: do you mean that sensibilities have changed between Montgomery's day and today, or between the late 70s/early 80s and today?

I definitely agree that Montgomery's books are a "joyful escape" - one that I choose to take advantage of with some regularity! :) And yes, they are certainly a product of their time, and reflect the ideas and mores of that era...

In terms of their (possible?) decrease in popularity at the current moment, I wonder how much of it is simple logistics...? If the books were all in print, and sitting on bookstore shelves, young readers would pick them up, tell their friends, etc. But if most of them stay out-of-print, then they become scarce, library copies wear out and can't be replaced, and a whole generation of young readers think that the Anne series is it... It does seem odd to me, that in this age of reprinting classic children's titles, so much of L.M. Montgomery has gone out-of-print!

Sensibilities certainly have changed. I love stories like these because it does reflect the times. When these books were written I'm sure they were considered "modern". I haven't read them until recently so I don't have the "young reader" perspective.

I was reading Dark Shadows and other vampire books in my preteens. Maybe because my life was so mundane, those sorts of stories appealed to me. I probably would have inhaled the HP series at that age. Perhaps Twilight too.

Kids are exposed to so much negative from the media, it's great to have an escape that is as joyful as A of GG.

I've noticed this as well. I havent' checked at the library lately (since I own almost all of the books I don't need to borrow them), but I have noticed at the store. I haven't even seen Emily books, and you can only get the first two or three Anne books and not even always either. You can find AoGG okay especially since the 100th this year, but any others are hard to find. It might be something to do with the movies. I dunno... Maybe part of it is that despite everything she wanted, Anne does still marry and whatnot, and nowadays people want the independent women more. I don't know. Maybe they are too sweet, like Salma said. If you look at Harry Potter and other similar books that are popular now, they're a lot more dark even though good triumphs. In LMM even when there were dark times they weren't dark books. I need to think about this more I think.

Well, I tend to think that there's room for both gritty realism and sentimentality in children's literature - after all, it's a big field! I myself don't have as much interest in contemporary, realistic children's fiction, as I read some pretty heavy adult non-fiction. But I've heard the argument that darker themes aren't really as traumatic to young children as some adults think - that children sometimes need to read about death and misery, because it's a safe method of learning about the more disturbing aspects of the wider world...

I remember that when I was thirteen I went through a phase where I was obsessed with the Holocaust - I read over thirty survivor memoirs in one year. It was my first real exposure to human evil, and I found it repellent and endlessly fascinating.

That said, what really interests me, in terms of Montgomery's popularity (or lack thereof), is what it says about the current moment in children's literature. Salma's example of Lois Duncan, who was publishing in the 70s and 80s, demonstrates that gritty realism was also around back when Montgomery was going through a resurgence of popularity. So the two co-existed...

Salma wrote: "I know this stuff exists in real life, but is it really necessary to paint such a dour picture of life for children and teens?


I prefer to read for entertainment, and I choose the same for my kids. I'm not entertained by death and misery. Yes, I choose happy uplifting stories for my kids! If they want to read off the "Oprah" list when they grow up, that's their choice.

just to add to my above comment- I was looking at some 'modern' children's books the other day. And a lot of them dealt with things like illness, divorce, death, etc. These things were in LM too, but lightly treated- or maybe not lightly, but the 'good' stuff trumped the 'bad' stuff- it seems that nowadays it's the opposite.

Just for fun, I picked up a Lois Duncan book the other day- she used to be one of my fave authors when I was a kid, and looked through "Daughters of Eve." This was written in 1979, and I was horrified to think I'd liked it at one point- the book runs rampant with hatred between the sexes, domestic violence, sexual exploitation, etc.

I know this stuff exists in real life, but is it really necessary to paint such a dour picture of life for children and teens?

I think if I'd been exposed ONLY to contemporary children's authors and no LM Montgomery at all, I'd be a lot more jaded than I am right now...lol

Salma responds:

"Glad I'm not the only one who noticed-

Chandra- you've got a point about the movies, maybe that's it.

One other thing though- the 80s didn't have Harry Potter and Twilight, two series that have probably trumped children's interests in other books.

Also- do you think maybe LM is too 'sweet' for the jaded children of these times?"

I too have observed this trend, and have been concerned by it. I recall L.M. Montgomery's entire body of work being in print (in the Bantam editions), and readily obtainable at bookstores and libraries. Now, many of those paperback editions (save the Anne and Emily books) are no longer available.

What do you think this means? Is L.M. Montgomery just not as popular these days? Is it, as Chandra observes, tied in to the film versions made in the 1980s? Is it cyclical?

Chandra replied:

"Salma, I've wondered the same thing recently. I also remember going to bookstores and seeing the YA shelves stacked with LMM titles. The only conclusion I can draw is that there was a renewed interest in the 1980s because of the film and that perhaps that has waned in recent years."

Over in the "Favorite Anne Books?" thread, Salma raised an interesting point about the seeming scarcity of L.M. Montgomery's books, at libraries and bookstores. Here is her comment:


"BTW- I'm just curious-when I was a kid in the 80s, my library and local bookstores were packed with LM Montgomery books- that's when I bought a bulk of the short story collections.

Nowadays, though, when I go into libraries or B&N, they only have Anne and Emily in there. Does this mean girls nowadays aren't reading LM as much anymore? I hope not! That would be, to quote Anne, "tragical."