Jane Eyre
discussion
Children and Classics
My own thoughts are there are enough great stories that have been written on children´s levels, why would it be necessary to introduce them to adult literature?Just check out the Newberry and Caldicott winners and you will realize there is a gold mine of great stories for children
The Little Engine that Could
Dr. Seuss
The Wheel on the School House (DeJong)
I think the earlier the better. I have a bunch of picture books of the classics. Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, The Wind in the Willows, The Wizard of Oz. It really gets them into the story. That's how I started out when I was young. Then I moved up to the abridged versions until I graduated to the original official ones. And you don't have to choose one side exclusively. You can never read enough, in my opinion.
Geoffrey wrote: "My own thoughts are there are enough great stories that have been written on children´s levels, why would it be necessary to introduce them to adult literature?Just check out the Newberry and Cal..."
Children's stories are fantastic, reading some now in fact. But you know Fairy Tales were originally written for adults and stuff like Moby Dick was considered a boy's adventure story when it came out. Hell most of Charles Dickens' oeuvre is found in the Children's section in most book stores and libraries. So what we consider "adult" literature and what we consider children's stories are sometimes muddled. But I agree. There is a veritable gold mine of wonderful children's stories.
I think it depends on the child.One of my first books (I think it was for my second birthday) was the beautifully and classically illustrated "A is for Annabelle" by Tasha Tudor. I suspect it was a gateway drug/book, to harder classics. Seriously, how many preschool kids have you ever run across who knew what a zither was?
I survived the mandatory bed rest/imprisonment with mumps in the second grade by reading the entire collection of Sherlock Holmes stories, and then, after finishing those, Edgar Allan Poe's. (That probably explains a lot about me.)
When I was four, I got to see a production of "As You Like It" on the Rhododedron, a sternwheeler that ran the Ohio, Kanawa and Monongahela Rivers. We lived on the Ohio River. If you walked too far in the back yard you'd fall in.
Did I understand it all? No. Of course not. But I absorbed it, and I think that stuck, something in my psyche grabbed onto all of that and held it, hooked me, waiting for time and maturation. I read and loved Dante by the fifth grade. Chaucer by the sixth. And Beowulf. Vanity Fair, Jane Austen, Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights . . .
My sister read Dr. Suess and various and sundry children's books.
She's successful.
I am not.
She writes legal briefs and defends insurance companies.
I write disturbing fiction.
Be careful what you let your children read?
I do not think that the brilliant Brontes are suitable reading for children. Certainly not Jane Eyre - a tale of child and spousal abuse, whatever childish cover is put on it. So, yes, I think there is a time and place for first reading a book. The age would depend on the child/person's maturity and ability to understand the story.
Reading abridged or child versions, in my opinion, is pointless, when there is so much extraordinary child literature in the world.
For me books are good that are written well and the changing and editing of the author's words so that people for whom the book was not written can understand (and probably miss the point) is sacrilege.
I think you're right, Mary. If you let kids discover the stories they love they will wind up loving to read. Make it a chore and you've lost them forever.
But I will forever deny that Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass and What She Found There are children's books. They're readable and enjoyable by children, but they're like the old Looney Tunes, Tex Avery, Animaniacs, Yellow Submarine — entrancing to a younger audience but not FOR children. As you gain years, experience and depth of understanding they reveal wholly different books
Carroll may have ostensibly written Alice for his niece, but I believe he really wrote it for himself, because it was the story he wanted to write.
I don't care for abridged or children's versions, unless they are completely different like some graphic novels/picture books I know. (I want to read those, too!) There are enough good books and classics for children to read and in most cases "adult" literature and themes wouldn't interest them yet.But after they are about 10-12 and older, there is no reason why they shouldn't read classics, if they are interested. I guess I am lucky, "age appropriate" isn't really a term we use. Unless we are asking if a person of that age would enjoy a book like that, it's more like "suitable", then.
I dunno, I think maybe I do disagree that it's a good idea to encourage and introduce classic literature to kids :PI mean if your child shows an interest in reading classic lit then sure, but I dont think there's anything to gain from shoving it down their throats before theyre too young to even appreciate it. If you want your child to grow up to read and understand canonic literary works when theyre older then the best thing to do is instill a love of reading at an early age. And children love Roald Dahl, Harry Potter, etc. Not abridged versions of war and peace.
I think there's too much emphasis on trying to get children to run before they can walk, and far too often it's not about the kids but about the parents' sense of superiority. My toddler is too good to read The Very Hungry Caterpillar, I prop him in front of the complete works of Shakespeare every night instead *yawn*
The best way to introduce them to classic lit is whenever they show an interest.
If your kid is into horses suggest they try Black Beauty instead of The Saddle Club. Make harder books accessible to them, encourage them to step outside their comfort zones, but never force it. If you do you might end up with a kid who doesn't want to read at all.
I read a LOT of adult literature when I was a child. Like some people here, my mom was just happy that I liked reading so much. I think she should have guided better what I read.I think intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with this, yet many people think kids are very smart or "little Einsteins" if they read Shakespeare. I started with "El Lazarillo de Thormes" at the age of 5, I read Shakespeare and Cervantes at the age of 7-8 and yes, I was very smart, but those books were wasted on me.
Someone in a thread about A Game of Thrones asked about it, pointing out that the child in question was "a straight A student". But to fully get adult books you need emotional maturity, more than intelligence. Yes, some people love analyzing books with deep literary knowledge and make everyone else fell silly, but that's not really what matters to me, as to enjoy a book. Yes, I enjoyed those books, but I would have also enjoyed books more suited for the age I was.
Geoffrey wrote: "My own thoughts are there are enough great stories that have been written on children´s levels, why would it be necessary to introduce them to adult literature?Just check out the Newberry and Cal..."
Why is it an either/or proposition? Why not do both?
Kids will seek their own level of reading if you let them, maybe giving them a nudge every once in awhile to get them testing new waters, but no more than a nudge.I had plenty of age appropriate books. I read those too. I loved the Five Little Peppers books, Mrs. Wiggs of the Cabbage Patch, Rackety Packety House, the Oz books, all the Little Women/Little Men, but that didn't preclude my enjoyment of age inappropriate books. The kid books were fun, entertaining, but they didn't make me THINK like the others, and the thinking is what I loved.
By the time I reached the age for YA type books they bored me to tears though. Like watching those stupid After School Specials with the pedantic, condescending *lessons*.
I grew up reading books from a very early age. Everyone at my place used to read. All the time. Like most families in India, it was a joint family where my parents, my younger sister and grand parents all used to stay together.
It was natural for me to pick up a book as every other person in the home was reading.
But when they saw I can (and love to read) they took me to a book shop and let me choose.
I picked up something which interested me. It was meant for a five year old. Later they realise that I was reading really fast and buying those books seemed difficult. So they got me a library membership.
I was never guided about what to read. They never censored or picked anything for me. I read whatever I liked.
I started with classic pretty early, on my own. The reason was that I have finished reading most of the children's section before I turned 10. And adult section had bigger books. :-)
It was a choice made by me. I am still happy they let me choose.
I prefer to let children choose and respect their choice. If they choose to read (classics or otherwise) or choose even not to read.
Why is it that guiding a child's readings is interpreted as censoring? I don't believe in just letting kids read, do, watch, etc. anything they want without any counseling or guidance, but hey, that's me. I believe that the "oh, they're gonna find it anyway behind your back, so why bother trying" is simply laziness. There's a difference between forbidding and recommending.I did enjoy the age inappropriate books that I read (as I said before), and I still wish I had some guidance (not censorship) about what I should have read. I'm not saying "forbid children access to adult books", I'm talking about suggesting what's adequate for the child.
YA books aren't adequate for each and every teenager (and some young adults feel so special when they claim to the "older adult" world that they don't like them, heh), as happens with any book for any age (or music, or TV, etc.). If you know your child and you know their personality and emotional level, you can recommend better readings. As long as you don't go "don't read that because I say so", the result is usually good. If you don't have ease to sit with them and talk about their readings without sounding like an after school special, you're doing it wrong.
I don't regret things I read as a child, because now it's making for very interesting comparisons of my impressions back then and now. These comparisons are making me realize how definitely not ready I was for some of those readings and how much better it could have been if I had read other stuff, reserving those for when I was older.
Older could have been just a couple of years, I'm not saying the classics should be read at the age of 30 or anything. There ARE children's book that encourage thinking. I loved those stories, because they were much better stories, yes. I grabbed King Lear when I was like 9 and I was absorbed by the tragedy and couldn't stop reading. Then I had horrible nightmares about plucking out eyeballs. My mom should have known that I was not ready for that and recommend me to read something else instead, equally compelling, but less violent.
Yes, it takes work for the parent, they have to actively raise their child, know them, have the confidence it takes to talk about anything, and also know a LOT of age-appropriate literature within the range of their child's personal taste. I didn't say it was easy, but it's good.
Laura wrote: "I grabbed King Lear when I was like 9 and I was absorbed by the tragedy and couldn't stop reading. Then I had horrible nightmares about plucking out eyeballs. My mom should have known that I was not ready for that"Exactly how should your mother have known you weren't ready for it if you didn't know yourself and read eagerly? Or are you suggesting that no one should read King Lear at that age simply because you couldn't handle it? Because I probably wasn't much older when I first heard about Jack the Ripper and then read about and watched pictures of his victims, or at least about something similar. They should have even forbid me from reading history books because then you might read something about quartering or other stuff that have actually happened. Are you also saying that children shouldn't read history books, either, or where do you draw the line?
My more sensitive friends were smart and stopped reading books they didn't feel comfortable reading, no parental "guidance" necessary there, and some were books I stopped reading because they were too childish. They are not blaming their parents now. And again, I do wonder how would you stop a child borrowing or buying a book you told them not to read and they wanted to anyway?
It's a good thing my mother didn't "oversee" my reading. I'd never have gotten to read anything worthwhile. I stayed holed up in my room (wasn't allowed to go out and play with the other kids in the neighborhood very often, they were California Catholic and her uptight southern Baptist ass didn't want to be contaminated) with books to get away from the yelling and hitting. I'd've probably gone crazy if I hadn't had books with enough challenge and depth.
Children, I believe, seek out the books that satisfy them, emotionally and intellectually. Children are curious, but it goes more deeply than that sometimes, especially in a less than ideal family situation, they NEED answers to the whys and reassurance that there is some sort of release, and those kinds of answers and reassurances aren't terribly believable in most children's and YA books, especially a generation ago.
I've heard from too many associates, friends and colleagues that they were parents that gave their children a lot of leeway when growing up, yet knowing them as I do and how bossy some of them are I know they are kidding themselves. Their self-actualization levels are close to nil and through either vanity or the desire to live at the side of angels, believe the best of themselves which is hardly the truth.So when you say that "guiding" your children is not censoring their reading habits, I have to pose the task, look deeply into your motives and if you can seriously, honestly say that you are not domineering, and remember, children are much more intimidated by adults than you think, then go ahead and guide their reading habits. But my suspicions will still linger.
I was fortunate in my upbringing. My parents never interfered with my reading. I read the Bible when I was six and told them I thought the book was really "cool". Not that I understood in the least when Ham laid down with....
Tytti wrote: "Laura wrote: "I grabbed King Lear when I was like 9 and I was absorbed by the tragedy and couldn't stop reading. Then I had horrible nightmares about plucking out eyeballs. My mom should have known..."People know their own kids though, and probably do have a pretty good idea what kinds of books are suitable for them.
I think age is a factor here but in the case of a 9yo which is the example given, they probably wouldn't be allowed to go to a bookshop alone and buy a book that their parents said they couldn't read. So it is down to the parent to make that call. I dont think it's a case of censorship, but just helping your children make choices which are appropriate to both their reading level AND their level of intellectual maturity.
And in regards to history, yes! It shouldn't be censored but you pick and choose which parts to teach children. You wouldn't teach six year olds about the holocaust by showing them images of the mass graves at Auschwitz.
With teenagers it's different but when we're talking about young children, yes it's part of the parents' role to oversee what they're doing. Thats not censorship, it's parenting
Daisy wrote: "they probably wouldn't be allowed to go to a bookshop alone and buy a book that their parents said they couldn't read"Why wouldn't they be allowed? They are allowed to go anywhere else. And they still could borrow it from the library, so no money needed, either.
I was never taught history, either. I just picked subjects that interested me. It would have been very difficult to control my reading when I was home alone with a bookcase full of books. WWII came pretty early, though of course I had heard about it since I was a kid anyway. It was part of my father's childhood.
Tytti wrote: "Daisy wrote: "they probably wouldn't be allowed to go to a bookshop alone and buy a book that their parents said they couldn't read"Why wouldn't they be allowed? They are allowed to go anywhere e..."
Well when I was nine the nearest bookshop and library were a 30 minute bus ride away and I wasn't allowed to get the bus into town by myself until I was about 12 or 13... I dunno if nowadays kids have access to kindles etc but when I was a child I was pretty much limited to what my parents wanted me to read.
Well, most 7-year-olds can go to a library or a bookstore alone unless they live very far from the nearest village centre. City kids are of course surrounded by them. I rarely went to town alone but was about 8 when I travelled to my grandma's alone by bus. Some 13-year-olds served as messengers in the last wars, my grandfather went to work for railways at that age.
That's good, Tytti. It's also a rarity here in the U.S. Everything is very spread out and libraries aren't that easily accessible to kids, unless they have a good school library.
Of course the distances can be long but then we have busses and bikes, and children go to and from school everyday, or to hobbies etc.
Either way I think Laura's original point still stands, that intellectual precocity doesn't necessarily mean that a child is emotionally mature enough for traditionally 'adult' books, and it's part of the role of the parent to steer them towards titles that will be thematically suitable for them.
Why? Just because some kids can't be trusted to not read books that give them nightmares doesn't mean that everyone is that stupid. And for someone who grew up watching news about different wars and other violence, most books are not that scary. Should parents censor newspapers, too?
Daisy wrote: "Either way I think Laura's original point still stands, that intellectual precocity doesn't necessarily mean that a child is emotionally mature enough for traditionally 'adult' books, and it's part..."The Bible was one of the scariest books I read when I was very young. So much rape, pillage, smiting and smoting.
Tytti wrote: "Why? Just because some kids can't be trusted to not read books that give them nightmares doesn't mean that everyone is that stupid. And for someone who grew up watching news about different wars an..."I dont think it's a case of being stupid, how is a nine year old supposed to know what the content of King Lear is going to be, before they've even read it?
Yeah kids will be exposed to other kinds of violence but it's different for every kid- some are quite oblivious to what's going on in the news, others are aware but unaffected, whereas maybe more sensitive children are very upset/disturbed by what they see on the news. If that's the case and theyre having nightmares etc then it probably is down to the parent to know that and intervene: I would probably watch the 11oclock news after they've gone to bed, and read newspapers online instead of having them around the house.. Again, limiting a child's exposure to something that's upsetting them isn't censorship- children dont actually need to be aware of current events.
Picking and choosing what you expose your child to isn't censorship, it's actually something parents are doing all the time, consciously or unconsciously. The same applies to books. It isn't about forbidding children to read adult books. Laura explicitly says:
" did enjoy the age inappropriate books that I read (as I said before), and I still wish I had some guidance (not censorship) about what I should have read. I'm not saying "forbid children access to adult books", I'm talking about suggesting what's adequate for the child."
I dont see why that's a problem.
I agree with everyone who's said that children should just be encouraged to read, full stop. Let them read what interests them, whether that be Alice in Wonderland or Alien Underpants Adventure, if you encourage and stimulate the love of reading then eventually they'll usually have the curiosity to read and discover the classics by themselves. I think that abridged versions are just... wrong. Why ruin all the details and surprises of a story in a less full version? And like others have said, there are some fantastic children's books out there. Adults have far too much control over the way children turn out, in my opinion, as they can choose what toys they buy for them and what films they take them to see, at least them read what they want to, if age appropriate. Classics aren't for everyone and they do not have to be. To paraphrase the old saying, you can lead a child to a classic, but you can't make them love it.
Daisy wrote: "I dont think it's a case of being stupid, how is a nine year old supposed to know what the content of King Lear is going to be, before they've even read it?"They can always stop reading the book and later ask their parents if they think something might be too scary. Many or even most kids don't need that kind of supervision, they learn to do it for themselves. I had my own books in my room, so I understood that when I started looking at the books in the living room, there could be "adult themes". The same with the library. I learned to be responsible for my own reading decisions. Maybe because I wasn't sheltered I learned how to be careful, too. And yeah, I even might have guessed that King Lear might be violent, I probably already knew that the Bible was (the Crucifixion is a big hint). I had heard about mass executions and stuff, I was aware that such things (had) happened.
Also we get newspapers delivered at home every day. I probably started reading them soon after I learned how to read, the evening news were on the background while I did something else in the living room because there really wasn't anything else on tv at the same time. I recognized the president when I was no more than 4, maybe younger. Being interested in current affairs is considered a good thing here, as is reading newspapers. They even teach that in schools.
Tytti wrote: "Why? Just because some kids can't be trusted to not read books that give them nightmares doesn't mean that everyone is that stupid. And for someone who grew up watching news about different wars an..."Wait, are you calling me stupid because I had nightmares about King Lear? What the fuck is wrong with you? Have you even read what I wrote, about KNOWING YOUR CHILD because, let me tell you something you don't seem to know; NOT ALL CHILDREN ARE THE SAME? About NOT FORBIDDING but GUIDING, which is called PARENTING?
Why don't you try your best to be respectful when you expose your ideas, instead of coming here to boast about how your were the perfect supersmart superintelligent child? Your way of expressing yourself about yourself and others doesn't really strike me as intelligent, but narrow-minded and self absorbed.
I offer my congratulations to the many adults and parents who guide and protect and safely test the limits of their children which are their responsibility. Excellent work, folks.As for the opening post, I've read so many levels of reading to my kids over the years that it all gets mashed up in my head. They were pretty young when I read Charlotte's Web, Sherlock Holmes, or Tarzan. I waited a while for Jane Eyre because they would have been lost by those sentences. I found they couldn't follow the first chapter of Peter Pan the first time I tried, so I put it away and a year later they followed it. Also,I left easy books, regular books, and hard books on their shelves. They could test themselves, or go easy that day. They could stick with the level they were at. It didn't matter. They had good choices in a safe environment. Besides, you don't want to expose your child to ALL the good stuff when they're younger- save some back for them as teens and beyond. It gives them 'places' to go, lol.
Laura wrote: "Wait, are you calling me stupid because I had nightmares about King Lear?"Well if you continue to read books where they pluck people's eyeballs out AFTER you have already had nightmares about it, then yes, that would be stupid. Usually people learn from their mistakes, some people keep doing them. Some kids put their tongues on the frozen metal even when they have been told not to, most won't do it again and many are smart enough to not try at all.
And if you yourself didn't know that you would get nightmares about it, then how could your parents have known? If you knew or guessed, then why did you read it in the first place? And how come you didn't know it was adult literature? And that adult books might have disturbing things in them?
A nine-year-old already has responsibilities, they have to take care of their own homework, for example. Choosing their own reading should be allowed, too. Or if you are sensitive, you should know to ask about it before reading it. Some kids are seriously allergic, they HAVE to learn not to eat those foods. Some choices have consequences, and what a better way to learn them than choosing your own books.
It was one book! Reading it can't injure you. So you got nightmares, everyone gets them sometimes.
Tytti, I can't find respectful words to express what I think of you. You keep insulting me for having been a fucking normal child. Worse: you insult the child that I was. But this is not the first thread where you enjoyed yourself insulting a kid. So, I don't care about being polite anymore. Tytti: screw you.I, too, offer my congratulations to parents and adults who take the effort to guide and protect and safely test the limits of their children. I also congratulate the people who actually made constructive comments, instead of insulting children for being children.
Oh yeah, "Anamika" who hated The Diary of Anne Frank because... well for no reason I guess. No, I don't care how old people who participate in online discussions are. I assume they are old enough and there is no way for me to tell anyway.Laura wrote: "You keep insulting me for having been a fucking normal child. Worse: you insult the child that I was."
So you read King Lear and now you think that no kid should read it because you got nightmares? Or that your parents should have known beforehand that it would happen, somehow? Should they have made a list for you for all the books you can't read? Yeah, good luck with that.
Or are you feeling insulted because I said that it is stupid if you then continue reading books that give you nightmares? Well yeah, kids make mistakes, as do parents. Maybe everyone should learn from them. In your case maybe you should have stayed in the children's section if you were that sensitive. But I see no reason that other kids would have to do the same. I remember reading adult books when I was eight but not wanting to read some of Astrid Lindgren's children's books because I felt they were too sad and/or scary even when I was older.
Anamika (now going by Hallie) posts troll threads that state she either hates/loves books that she hasn't even read (for secret research /rollseyes), then gleans info from them and writes inane reviews, and she's not a *kid*, just disingenuous.
Tytti wrote: "Oh yeah, "Anamika" who hated The Diary of Anne Frank because... well for no reason I guess. No, I don't care how old people who participate in online discussions are. I assume they are old enough a..."God this argument is so circular.. I dont understand how you keep getting from 'parents should guide individual children's reading habits as all children are different' to 'king Lear should be banned to all children'. That's the exact opposite of what's being said. I dont know if youre being deliberately obtuse, but if not then I guess youre the perfect illustration of how reading classics at a young age doesn't necessarily make you an intelligent or enlightened adult.
So, thanks for proving my original point I guess?
Daisy wrote: "'parents should guide individual children's reading habits as all children are different'"Because usually "guiding" means that parents don't let children read certain books, because they have sex or something else in them. Also I don't know where you are from but I have noticed Americans are generally very restricting when it comes to reading (and pretty much everything else, too). Not all countries are like that, luckily. It's easy to say they "should guide" but how that actually happens is a different matter. Kids can't read a book that their parents haven't read first? No thanks.
If "guiding" means buying them books or suggesting others they might like, then sure, guide as you like. Though I think that teachers and librarians are better equipped to do that because they follow what goes on in children's literature. I just know books from my own childhood. Children are not old enough to know all the literature that is out there. It's just that I do this with my friends, too, it's normal. Telling children to read only books YOU think are good for them and allow them to read, then I won't agree with that. That's censorship. They should be allowed to be their own people. Adults might feel some things are too scary but kids don't see them like that. Again, most children won't be harmed if they read a book that's too much for them. Of course if some kid keeps reading books and getting nightmares and still won't stop reading them, maybe then it's a time for a discussion. But majority of kids won't need that kind of intervention.
I come from a culture where most children are not "guided", apart from trying to offer them books that they might be interested and would make them want to read more. Some adults mention getting a bit "traumatized" by reading King at a young age and not wanting to read horror when they were older but still they think that children should read what they want. Some even think it's good that children read "wrong" books, that's how they learn their limits and learn something about themselves.
Here parents or teachers or librarians mainly warn children if they think some book might be too scary for them but to forbid them to read it is rare. Some might say that a certain book isn't really for children to read. (A person to whom this was said when she was 12 then continue to read all those thick books for the few sex scenes they had in them. She now agrees that it wasn't really for children but that's it. She laughs at it and doesn't blame her parents.)
Oh and I didn't read "classics" at a young age. I read books, all kinds. I just realize that you can't and shouldn't totally control what your children read. I also wouldn't even dream of knowing anyone, including my own children, well enough to make their reading choices for them. They should be allowed some privacy and a freedom of choice. For some reason this isn't a problem here, I can hardly even find any kind of discussion about the subject. But of course you can always make problems out of issues that are not really problems in the first place.
I am a bit surprised by comments that a book gives a poster nightmares, but such is life. It happens. As a child I never had nightmares from reading anything and I was extremely wide and well read.My younger brother had nightmares at the age of five. He was chased by dinosaurs who were going to maul him. Where that came from I don't know. Perhaps picture books. Perhaps cartoons. Perhaps movies. But that didn't change his reading or viewing habits.
I've only had nightmares once from reading and that was as the tender age of 48. The book in question was THE HISTORY OF HELL written exceedingly well by a former editor of Playboy. Despite the nightmares, (I don't believe the place exists)I would read it again and strongly recommend the book.
Tytti wrote: "Daisy wrote: "'parents should guide individual children's reading habits as all children are different'"Because usually "guiding" means that parents don't let children read certain books, because..."
Okay sure, thats a reasonable argument and I have to say, I agree with a lot of it. I just thought it was unfair the way you jumped down Laura's throat about what she was saying, which to me was equally valid.
I'm actually English, and wasn't particularly restricted in what I read as a child either. I went straight from Harry Potter etc to Roddy Doyle and Irvine Welsh at some point in my early teens. I wasn't really a sensitive child and never needed policing, so that worked really well for me but i don't think it's the only way to parent. Maybe for a different sort of child my parents would have been a disaster.
Also in retrospect I kind of have a feeling they might have been more aware of what I was reading than I thought at the time. I'm sure if they saw me reading anything wildly inappropriate they would have intervened.
Geoffrey wrote: "I am a bit surprised by comments that a book gives a poster nightmares, but such is life. It happens."Yes, such is life. My friend, +30, just had nightmares where he was playing badminton with Putin. I can't remember was it because of a documentary or a book... My father sometimes had nightmares where he was going to some exam while studying. At the time he had already been teaching for decades. As far as I know, he never got nightmares for seeing Soviet planes over his home and then hearing how they bombed the nearby town when he was a child.
TyttiYes, I am glad you spotted the euphemism, "guiding the reading habits of children". I, too, took it as usually meaning censoring their reading habits.
I've had nightmares all my life. Big deal. You learn to live with them. Some of them have been horrendous. You wake up and you say to yourself, "Oh, another nightmare" and then go about your business. The reality was an alternative one-there's no need to let it influence your mood during the day.
I've been shot at repeatedly, saved damsels from rape, been propositioned by men...the list goes on. Big deal.
Daisy wrote: " Also in retrospect I kind of have a feeling they might have been more aware of what I was reading than I thought at the time. I'm sure if they saw me reading anything wildly inappropriate they would have intervened. "I however think that it does not work like this. Do you remember fifth part of Harry Potter? The moment Umbridge banned the magazine in which interview of Harry was published, Hermoine is happy. She knows that it means everyone is going to read it.
It is true in life too. (And in parenting as well).
I like to call it a spring effect. The more you suppress, the more it is going to bounce.
Mads
Daisy wrote: "I just thought it was unfair the way you jumped down Laura's throat about what she was saying, which to me was equally valid."But I still don't know what her parents should have done to please her. Forbid her from reading King Lear before she read it or saying that she shouldn't have read it afterwards? It's always easy to say some abstract thing or tell others they should do something, especially in hindsight, but it gets very difficult when you have to put it in practice. And a 9-year-old is a pretty big child already, they can make decisions in small matters that concern them.
Geoffrey wrote: "Yes, I am glad you spotted the euphemism, "guiding the reading habits of children". I, too, took it as usually meaning censoring their reading habits."I grew up living next to the Soviet Union. I am pretty good at noticing euphemisms...
That sounds horrible, Geoffrey. I can see why you, too, don't think books are that dangerous. I truly am grateful for being born into a peaceful and safe country.
I think so, too, Mads, though it depends a bit of the child. But it won't stop kids reading it, if they really want to.
Madhuri_v wrote: "Daisy wrote: " Also in retrospect I kind of have a feeling they might have been more aware of what I was reading than I thought at the time. I'm sure if they saw me reading anything wildly inapprop..."Yeah you're right, banning things will only make people want them more, which is why I dont think banning books is effective (whether it's right or wrong is a different matter)
But maybe the reason my parents never objected to any of the books I read is because for the most part they bought them for me. At the time it seemed like i was free to read what I wanted, but looking back maybe not. Maybe I was actually free to read what I wanted... Within the parameters they set.
I'm not sure, it's hard to be objective. I just wonder would the people crying censorship recommend their eight year old read American Psycho, or Harry Potter? Some 'censorship' is inevitable, it's just how you go about it really.
As I have mentioned, I got most of my books from the library that I visited alone. I didn't even feel like reading books that would have been too much for me. And that's the point, most kids don't want to read adult books when they are children, they are not interested in them. And some have said they read all the Harry Potters when they were seven. My friend, now a mother of three, just said she read Justine by de Sade and Papillon when she was probably "too young". It's not something one would recommend to a child but...
Tytti wrote: "Daisy wrote: "'parents should guide individual children's reading habits as all children are different'"Because usually "guiding" means that parents don't let children read certain books, because..."
It's interesting that you took that particular meaning of the phrase "guiding kids' reading habits."
I took it to mean, recommending books that kids might enjoy and perhaps giving them fair warning that a book might be a tad too much at their age (but not actually forbidding it at the same time.)
But perhaps Australia is a tiny bit on the lenient side when it comes to matters like sex and swearing and so forth than American culture (not as lenient as Europe though.) For instance when I visited America, I was watching TV and was shocked that many of the programs were edited to leave out swear words or nudity. Stuff that's shown on Free To Air TV where I live.
So perhaps I may do well to be on the look out for euphemisms. =)
@Daisy, You are right. I was talking about "Effective" You used exact word.Censorship never works because it makes you want to do the thing which is forbidden. But I guess, we all talked more about censorship and not what was the original question.
But the original question which Someramdom posted was if it will help (in making them read classics) if we nudge kids in the directions of classics? Or should we do that? Or they are too serious for the kids?
I still think it is a question no one can reply completely. Not even about their own kids. We can't even guide them to be someone. Or else all siblings would have been doing and choosing same things in life.
With all the crazy reading culture of my home, my sister (who is just one year younger than me) never found any interest in books till she reached 20s. (Yes, she liked to read now, but is not crazy about books like me)
Interestingly, my parents neither told me off for reading (I used to be lost to rest of the world) nor her for not. And we made our choices.
I guess it is same for classics or YA or anything. Let the child choose. If it does not interest them, that is fine. If it does, good.
(And I do not think even if a child picks up something which they do not enjoy, they will continue. In this world of games, Television and other attraction, it is rare that something uninteresting will keep their attention).
Mads
Yes, SomerandonI was a bit surprised when in 1980 I visited the mother country and there was a 7:30 p.m. show with frontal nudity and the man went down on his girlfriend. We never saw anything like that on American TV.
We're a very sexually uptight country. Fortunately, I live in Mexico and work as an artist. The sexually explicit images I make are never censored at any of the viewing venues I show my work. In fact, those images are the ones that get the most attention, unlike the US where I would get at least one disgruntled viewer make some adverse comments.
When something slips by the censors I love to see it and read it. I recall seeing a cable TV cop show about 8 years ago in the US and in the first scene there is the slightest fraction of a finished sodomization of one of the criminals. Although I am not a fan of such activity, it was good to see Jesse Helms dispensed with in a hardly noticed quickie.
Geoffrey wrote: "Yes, SomerandonI was a bit surprised when in 1980 I visited the mother country and there was a 7:30 p.m. show with frontal nudity and the man went down on his girlfriend. We never saw anything lik..."
Jesse Helms?
Hmm I used to watch a lot of what we call "SBS" shows as a kd. SBS is a free to air channel here which shows mostly foreign movies and TV shows. So I grew up on the European stuff.
Lots of nudity, lots of sex, lots of everything really. It was a little....odd for me to watch shows which lacked idk balls? Guts? Especially since they don't edit the American shows we get over here, which is kind of weird if you think about it lol
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
But what method do we use?
I recently encountered several in my local bookstore. One was a counting book for toddlers with drawings and references from Jane Eyre. The cover was even the Random House Vintage edition cover for Jane Eyre.
Another was a picture book of various Shakespearean plays. Another was simplified retold versions of classics like the Bronte stories, Shakespeare, Dickens and Emily Dickinson.
So which is the best strategy? And are there classics that shouldn't be introduced to a certain age group this way?
And indeed what are your thoughts on abridged works of authors for children vs unabridged versions?
Your thoughts?