Children's Books discussion
Conversations: books & readers
>
Does Anybody Else Feel That Books Have Been Dumbed Down?
Mod
Vlad wrote: "In fact, this comparison actually becomes confusing, since we're not discussing childr..."
Good point, we were never talking about comparing books from the 50s to books from the 90s or later. And anyway, that kind of a comparison, at least as envisioned by Vlad, would never work.
Mod
This is not mathematics, it is LITERATURE!! Big difference. It might work for numbers, but not only would it never work with literature, it would destroy the interpretative process. You cannot compare random books, you at least have to compare books of a similar theme.
Turning literature into a mathematical equation is not only short-sighted, it is destructive to literary theory as a whole.
The world is not based only on numbers, and what you are proposing is inherently destructive to literary interpretation. I am not saying that mathematics are useless, but numbers and data can never take the place and SHOULD NEVER take the place of literary theory and analysis.
Mod
And I think you have just further taken the wind out of Vlad's sails. He claims the at "The King's Fifth" with a lexile value of 840 is much more complex than the first Harry Potter book which has a lexile value. Ergo, language complexity is subjective and is not something that can simply be a mathematical formula (precisely because we, as humans, interpret differently, read differently, what one person might consider complex, another will consider as being simple).
Mod
And no linguist worth his/her salt would even consider making those kinds of judgments (judgments about language superiority or wether certain kinds of languages are superior to others).
Mod
I never said that math is unimportant, but I did say and do say that you cannot use math for everything. Math cannot and should not be used for literary analysis (it can perhaps be used in conjunction with certain parts of literary analysis, but not as the only source of literary analysis).
Mod
As we talk about whether "...Books Have Been Dumbed Down?" - which is a quote from the topic title of this thread, we need to figure out what we're measuring, and find the tool that will measure that.
Lexile scores will measure, to an extent, certain aspects of textual difficulty. But as the designers of those scores say on their website, the scores will only give a reader (parent, teacher...) one bit of information about the complexity of a book.
For example, one thing that makes a book 'easier' or 'more difficult' to read is the external knowledge needed to understand what is going on it. Some trite little stories from a century ago would be difficult for modern readers just because times change and we no longer use shoe-buttons or eat calves' foot jelly. For example.
So, I'm thinking complexity and difficulty aren't actually the most effective tools in our repertoire.
That is to say, unless that is actually what we mean when we say 'dumbed down.'
Mod
*However* I join the majority of those who have contributed to this thread to say that 'vocabulary' and 'dumbed down' do not equate.
Mod
What do we mean by 'dumbed down?'
Do we mean books that are more demanding on the cognitive skills of the readers?
Do we mean more books that are more likely to improve the cognitive skills of the readers?
Do we mean books that have themes that are deeper and more complex than, say, Aesop's one-note moral fables?
Do we mean books that have themes that are relevant to the contemporary readers, or do we mean themes that are relevant to readers of any age?
Do we mean books that educate the reader to live successfully as a citizen of his community, or as a citizen of the world?
Mod
I think you've raised great points. One more point...books for what age reader? Are we looking at picture books for the youngest reader? Are we looking at books aimed for 4-8 year olds, 8-12 year olds or 12 and up? And even those age brackets seem too wide to me. You often would read aloud or let a 12 year old read a very different type of book than an 8 year old. The 8 year old may or may not be able to read at the same level, but may not have the emotional maturity for some topics that a 12 year old should. So it is hard to make these types of analyses if you are comparing a book you'd read to a 6 year old with a book that a 12 year old would read on their own.One main use for lexile levels is to give teachers/parents an idea of the difficulty to help match books to readers. Not that this is a perfect tool...it is just a tool. Obviously, if you have high interest and/or lots of background knowledge on a subject you can read a harder book than someone without that interest and background knowledge. But as a teacher and a parent, if I see a second grader with Hunger Games, I am going to encourage them to choose another book...because in most cases this book isn't appropriate for the child in difficulty or in content. As a teacher, it also gives me some (but not a lot) of idea how much support I am going to need to give students as we read books together.
One other thought I had. I was just reading a nonfiction selection with my class today about play long ago and today. It talked about how many families would only have a few books and would read those books over and over. Multiple rereadings of the same book gives you added understanding and insight into that book. So perhaps one aspect that we haven't considered is also whether children were meant to understand children's stories on the first reading...or whether there was an expectation that the book would be heard over and over and would reveal new layers of meaning like peeling an onion. Just a thought. Today, some people do reread their favorite books over and over, and there can certainly be value in that, but the expectation is that most books will be read only once. Just a thought to throw out there.
Mod
Thanks Abigail. If we do decide that we're measuring the kind of complexity that can be measured by Lexiles, we must remember issues of sampling.
Mod
What else do you (Vlad, and all) think should be taken into consideration? How much weight do you think vocabulary and sentence length should be given when evaluating books?
And what do you think we're evaluating *for* - ?
Textual complexity?
Difficulty?
Relevance?
Wide appeal?
Thematic richness?
Originality?
...?
Mod
What else do you (Vla..."
Thematic richness, originality, relevance, but for me, first and foremost (at least if looking at the frame, at the form) are narrative flow, narration (does the narrator make sense, is for example, a first person narrator believable if he/she is supposed to be a child), how is the plot handled, does the story make sense, is it logical, or does it jump around. Vocabulary is important to an extent, but in a good book, vocabulary and style, vocabulary and narration need to mesh (so if a book has complex vocabulary, but a very simplistic narrative structure, that could be problematic). And a book does not have to be "difficult" in order to be rich, complex and readable (a book that is just difficult or is difficult simply for the sake of being thus, is not really a worthwhile children's novel in my opinion, and instead of inspiring children, will more likely frustrate them and make them stop reading).
Mod
Vocabulary and sente..."
I would perhaps measure these by how individual readers react to the books in question (both adults and children) and then compare the individual reactions. That is probably too non mathematical for you, but for me, how a book is written and how a book's narration is perceived (Reader Response Theory) is of prime importance (not the only thing of prime importance, I have problems with one-sided literary theories, but especially for children's literature, how books are perceived by its intended audience is important). And this could likely also give us hints as to education levels and educational problems as well. If, for instance, you are monitoring student response to a children's book, and one that many if not most adults would consider a very easy and simple read, and a classroom of elementary school children were to find said book much too difficult, the reasons why should probably be investigated (but investigated with an open mind).
And I would certainly not only base my comparison on reader response alone, because that would be as limiting as only relying on lexile score, sentence length and the like (which, in my opinion, would, like all theories that are one-sided and inherently formalistic, leave a simplistic conclusion, one that ignores meat and content and only looks at the packaging, the frame of a book, if that).
Vlad - good luck with your lexile research. But beware to hang too much importance on this measure. As most ELA teachers and librarians understand, these tools can be deceptive. One glaring example is To Kill a Mockingbird is 870L. Diary of a Wimpy Kid is 910L. Is the book less dumb because it has a higher lexile? Average numbers of Newbery winners, but I wouldn't put too much importance on those results.
Mod
Maybe to you. But not to those of us who love Children's Literature and who are parents, teachers, and life-long readers of same.
I do firmly believe that we *can* evaluate originality etc. That's what our discussion threads are all about here. And that's why we're wondering why you aren't participating in them.
But if all you want is an analysis of Lexiles, well, have fun with that. I'm not interested in that anymore than what's been explored already, by Christine, BunWat, and others, back in the thread.
When I made my original post, I was not thinking of the Newbery winners. I would just assume that those books are high quality and sophisticated; otherwise, they would not have been chosen.I would thinking more on the lower end. The "fun" books that kids are clamoring to read. When I was a kid, "How to Eat Fried Worms" was THE BOOK kids wanted to read. It seems more sophisticated than "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" or "Captain Underpants." However, I do think those two books have quite advanced vocabularies. They do have a lot of drawings, though, which makes them seem "dumber" so to speak (for lack of a better word.)
My son actually really likes the Wimpy Kid and Captain Underpants books and I think they are more akin to comic books than to regular books. (IMO) They are so very visual.
Just back from vacation but I've been following this discussion. There are many children's book series being produced these days. Too often series are put down as being too formulaic and a "dumbing down" of children's literature. Yet they have been (think Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew) and remain (Magic Tree House, Harry Potter, etc.) very popular and hook many kids into reading the entire run of a series. Often they provide much needed practice reading, as well as sustained reading at a particular reading level, providing needed confidence for readers. To me this is no mean feat and just what many readers need.
Concerning Kirei's post above: Some learners are just more visual, and choices like Diary of a Wimpy Kid, Captain Underpants, and many graphic novels attract those kids and more, through humor and the strength of the visual medium.
David wrote: "Just back from vacation but I've been following this discussion. There are many children's book series being produced these days. Too often series are put down as being too formulaic and a "dumbi..."
You make a good point. I think all these books, classics and comics serve a function for young readers. Twilight, while it may not be regarded as great literature, has taught so many girls the pleasure of getting lost in what they believe to be a good book. A few years ago I had a student who read nothing but Diary of a Wimpy Kid books. The following year he read The Kite Runner for a project and absolutely loved the book like no other. And while I do think DWK is not at all in the same league as All Quiet on the Western Front, for example, it does serve a function. Parents and educators need to make sure there is a balance of materials to ensure we are raising functionally and culturally literate readers.
Vlad wrote: "Vocabulary and sentence length are taken into account by Lexile scores, from what I understand. As for things like "originality", they're far too subjective to measure.That's why solely confining oneself to word and sentence complexity makes the most sense. "
Literature is art, not math. State accountability boards like lexiles because it provides us with a black and white answer. However, like art, it does not provide us with a complete and accurate answer. Is a painting that has more colors superior to one that has fewer? Not necessarily.
Michele wrote: "Vlad wrote: "Vocabulary and sentence length are taken into account by Lexile scores, from what I understand. As for things like "originality", they're far too subjective to measure.That's why sol..."
CCSS includes lexiles as one of three criteria for determining text complexity which is why we don't teach To Kill a Mockingbird in 4th grade where lexile alone would place it. I think if Vlad wants to make more meaningful analyses, he may find looking at placemats developed for CCSS helpful. The state of Kansas has some nice info...but I think most of us understand lexiles alone just don't provide a complete picture.
A computer program can only tell you the level of difficulty in individual words. It cannot take into account the arrangment and choice of words used, the life experience of the reader, the prior knowledge one needs to have to provide context etc. I am currently in the process of helping my 9th grade son through To Kill a Mockingbird. He is in honors and has been his entire life, but he is struggling with this book because the word choice and "voice" is so different from what he is used to. Raised in Arizona, the southern way of speaking is so alien to him. I have never found Jane Austen challenging to read (I read them all in junior high) because I grew up in Europe and am very accustomed to hearing English, not American, spoken. I think what is concerning is that our children must develop the skills as readers to be able to work through text that is more challenging to them instead of only reading the lighter, more fun "dumber" reads.
Mod
I never thought about dialects, but yeah, that is a real problem, or at least it can be. I've never had issues with Jane Austen as well, but that is likely because at school, we were taught more British than American English (and I've also always spelled the British way). There is so much to consider when analysing language and language complexity in children's literature; the difficulty of words, the lexile score is only one of many things to consider (and I still think that the way language is used, the way the narrative is constructed in a given text is much more informative and much more important than the complexity or supposed complexity of individual words).
This is why this becomes such a difficult question to really answer. As far as actual textual difficulty goes, you can assign a book a level based on sentence length, vocabulary, etc. But there is so much else involved in the reading process. Dialects. The way language is used. The topic/content of the book. And why I go back to saying that the book's lexile is just a tool...(and an imperfect one at that.) If you know a lot about a subject, you can read a book that may be above your average reading level on that topic but may struggle with something else. Who hasn't picked up some kind of textbook or manual and had trouble reading it...not necessarily because it had long words or long sentences but because you didn't have the background to understand what the book/manual was saying. On the other hand, a kid who is reading at a 5th grade reading level, for example, but who knows a lot about cars might be able to read a magazine about cars and get more out of it than I can even though overall I am a better/more skilled reader.While I think it may be interesting to see what the average lexile scores are for Newberry's over the years (for example), I don't think that necessarily will answer the question. Nor do I know if it is an important answer...I think the discussion is probably more important than getting a definitive answer.
For me, it boils down to this. If nothing else, children today (in general) are very fortunate. They have a wealth of books to read. Some are wonderful. Some are less wonderful. But as others have mentioned, often a less wonderful book is the stepping stone to reading better, richer books later. I read every Babysitters Club and Nancy Drew when I was a kid (and literally hundreds or thousands of picture books past the time when most kids were reading chapter books exclusively...I remember I kept track in 4th grade and read over 400 picture books that year alone)...and then I moved on to much better chapter books as I matured. If someone had not let me read those things perhaps I wouldn't have grown up to love reading as much as I do. So we expose kids to the great books but allow them to read the other stuff as well.
Mod
And those of us,like me, who aren't graphically oriented can struggle to appreciate the full artistry and complexity of The Invention of Hugo Cabret.
I definitely do not see graphic books as being 'dumbed-down.'
Mod
And those of us,like me, who aren't graphically oriented can struggle..."
I definitely do not see graphic novels as being "dumbed down" but as someone who is highly text oriented, I not only have trouble appreciating graphic novels, but also at times struggle with them (I just get more information from text than from images, but I would never consider graphic novels as automatically being lesser simply because I am not graphically oriented).
Yes, Bun. So many good points being raised by this discussion! So much of what we know and understand and appreciate is based on our own experiences as well as our likes and dislikes and such. I can remember as a child finding geography really difficult. But when I left for college, I had never been out of the country and had only been to 3 states. My family never traveled other than to see my grandparents. So I had nothing to connect that knowledge to. Now that I have done a lot more traveling (as well as a lot of reading), I am much better at geography because I can visualize where places are and for many places I have a memory connected to the place.While I think some value judgments can be made, so much of reading is about relationships between the reader and the text. Everyone has probably had the experience of reading a book that is considered a classic and well beloved and not enjoying it or appreciating it much. And we've probably all been drawn in to some books that perhaps weren't really sophisticated or perfectly written but that spoke to us on some level. So reading is about so much more than flat reading level.
Gundula, I also don't particularly enjoy graphic novels, but I'm so glad that they are available for those who do enjoy them. That's what I meant earlier that it is nice to live in a time when so many books of so many varieties are available so that all readers should be able to find something that speaks to them or appeals to them. And I agree that they aren't necessarily easier or "dumbed down".
Mod
There's an interesting anthology of early children's literature (I have a copy, but I have not read it yet, and also cannot seem to locate it at the moment, sigh), the title, I think, says it all, From Instruction to Delight: An Anthology of Children's Literature to 1850.
Mod
Calculations and lexile scores are a tool, a valuable tool, but only a tool all the same. Equations and numbers are important, but will never take the place of interpretation (they can augment interpretation, but will never be able to replace it entirely).
Look at all the movies and the situation comedies that feature robots who supposedly can "take over" (it never works because the human element, interpretation, thinking outside of the box, innovation, satire, irony and subtlety are missing). And that will also be missing from any literary interpretation, any literary analysis (for both children's and adult literature) that only takes into consideration words, lexile scores and the like (and the averages).
And just to bel clear this time, I am NOT against math, I am not against numbers and equations, but I do not think you can use math and numbers (and only math an numbers) to calculate how well books are written, or wether modern children's books are somehow lesser than those of earlier periods (and that is an entirely subjective view anyhow, an entirely personal view, just like my view that today's children's literature on the hole has not been "dumbed down" is also entirely personal and subjective, but I admit that). It will be interesting to see the results of your tabulations, but these tabulations should still not be used as absolutes, as gospels, but simply as a tool, as one part of the whole.
Mod
But we're interested only minimally in those scores, and much more in everything else about Children's literature.
Now, if you're not ready to move on to the discussion the group is having, it's time for you to find a group or folks that will discuss what you want to.
Vlad wrote: "BunWat wrote: "Yes. The results demonstrated precisely what several people in this group told you that they would demonstrate."Since you are fond of spotting fallacies, I will note that the parti..."
I am also curious about the shift between the 20's and 30's. My guess is that, after the award was established, children's literature became a growth industry. My belief, not founded in data or scholarship - just a hunch, is that children's books have been an increasing market and that the volume and diversity in children's literature has grown. I doubt that in the 20's and 30's, during the Great Depression, people were spending money on books for Johnny. Therefore, there would be little incentive for publishers to take a gamble in this market. Gundula, Cheryl and BunWat - you know more than me about this...what is your theory in the drop?
Mod
Why do you insist on intentionally misrepresenting what..."
Well then you are missing most of what literature is about. You might not agree with that, but that is my opinion (you need to do more than just compare language complexity to get ANY worthwhile results, comparing lexile scores is just one small part). And that is NOT misinterpreting you, it is just me stating what I believe to be true. Like Cheryl has posted, we get that you are obviously only interested in lexile scores, but we also have the right to disagree with you and to point out the obvious fallacies of relying only on lexile scores and the like.
Vlad wrote: "Christine wrote: " I doubt that in the 20's and 30's, during the Great Depression, people were spending money on books for Johnny."The 20s were actually a time of great prosperity before the Cras..."
Vlad wrote: "Christine wrote: " I doubt that in the 20's and 30's, during the Great Depression, people were spending money on books for Johnny."
The 20s were actually a time of great prosperity before the Cras..."
You know, I generally try to avoid being negative in general, and particularly on Goodreads, but you are an exhausting hair-splitter. I don't care to get into a large-scale discussion of income disparities and the plight of the working class during the 20's with you, although I can assure you my educational background makes me entirely qualified to do so - even though I am not someone as esteemed as a Wikipedia editor. Anyone else reading that comment would have understood that the Depression was in the within the time frame mentioned. This adds nothing to this discussion, so why even bring it up? You are really starting to be an irritant. One of the reasons I love Goodreads in general and this group in particular is that there are people here who know more than I do and are willing to share without condescension. If you are as knowledgeable as you believe yourself to be, you may want to try to find a way to contribute without being quite so abrasive.
Mod
The 20s were actually a time of great prosperity be..."
I so completely agree with your comment, Christine, very well put.
Mod
Since you are fond of spotting fallacies, I will note t..."
I think you are probably right about people spending less money on books during the Depression. If you did not know from where your next meal was coming, or if you had to travel from place to place for work, books were likely not all that important. And if people weren't buying books, publishers were also probably not publishing books (I mean, the Depression affected everyone and everything). What would be interesting to research is wether books being checked out of libraries became more popular during the Depression, or wether even libraries themselves became more universally popular during the Depression (if children's parents could not afford to buy books, did more children make use of libraries, and did they check out more classic books, or books recently printed). Not sure, as US history is not my strong point (I live in Canada), but I could definitely imagine that the economic woes of the Depression affected both children or children's parents being both willing and able to afford to buy books and publishing houses being both willing and able to print, to publish books.
Mod
I am not missing anything. I was simply confining my analysis to a very small part of literature that can be measured..."
Vlad, just for the record, I certainly never insulted you (although it was tempting and I was asked remove, and remove it I did, part of a post that could have been deemed somewhat of an insult, but mind you, it was a response to a clear insult of me by you, or at least something I considered an insult), unless you consider me agreeing with Christine insulting, and sorry, but she was/is right that it has generally been you who has been throwing insults and a mean-spirited, abrasive holier than thou attitude around (or do you actually consider it insulting or even unacceptable for someone not to agree with your pet opinions, which would be really unenlightened, naive and academically problematic).
But you, as soon as I dared question the usefulness of mathematics and only mathematics for literary analysis (and please remember that I never said math was unimportant), you have been not only insulting, but now downright nasty. Unless you grow up, become a bit less dogmatically one-sided, you really cannot call yourself a well-rounded, civilised individual (and people who seem to automatically call those who have different opinions idiotic, need only look in the mirror to see the true image of un-enlightenment).
Mod
I would agree with that. If the difference in average lexile scores had been, say, four hundred or five hundred points in a given decade (or if there had been a difference of four hundred or five hundred points between a given rather far in the past decade and the 90s and onwards), there might be reason for concern or a reason to further analyse this (but as it stands, as you have already pointed out, the variation just is not big enough and certainly does not reflect a serious "dumbing down" of children's literature as a whole).
Hmm, I think one of the problems with children's literature of the 50s is that in the immediate post war period, there was a tendency to focus on family, order, and simple, uncomplicated stories which tended to try to solidify the status quo (I've seen something rather similar with German children's literature of that time, the war is basically ignored to a high extent, and if it is mentioned, it is usually as a backdrop to the fate of German refugees, the Holocaust, the Nazi atrocities, the war itself is not generally part of the literature, children's literature often focuses on family, school, girls getting married and starting a family, you know the typical "happy" 1950s household).
Mod
I am wondering about that as well (because quite a few of the German children's stories of the 50s and 60s also have a tendency to be written in a more simple style than either those from earlier periods or from the 70s onwards).
I wonder if what we are referring to as a "dumbing down" is in actuality a widening of the appeal and the market for children's fiction. I would hypothesize that as the education level of children has increased over the decades, so has the market for a wider array of books. My father's generation, children of working class laborers in the 1930's and farmers, often did not complete their education past 6th grade. Now, that would be an exception to see a child stop their education so young. I think that the kids who would enjoy Ginger Pye are still reading those types of books. There is an entirely different group of kids to sell to now.
Christine wrote: "I wonder if what we are referring to as a "dumbing down" is in actuality a widening of the appeal and the market for children's fiction. I would hypothesize that as the education level of childre..."I've been avoiding this thread 'cause the Lexiles conversation drives me batty.
I agree with Christine's thoughts here. Long, long ago it seemed elite children were educated with Latin classics, but that was really only a tiny group of people. I think it is possible that children's lit became more inclusive as the middle class grew.
While this thread is quite old, I believe the trend is more noticable than ever. Many successful books for children 8 to 12 have been dumbed down to the extent they are a shadow of what they should be. The question I have is 'why'? My suspicion is that book publishers only care about what sells, irrespective of the quality of the books they 'gate keep'. And those buyers who want the easy route to a purchase see a 'bestseller' on display and buy into the same myth. It pains me to see the rubbish that is heavily promoted in 2018/19. The top listed children's books are (with a few exceptions) utter garbage, dumbed down to an alarming extent. Diaries for idiocy, Awful Author writes another Bad Book and stick people imitate shallow lives. Ideal preparation for Retards' Island.
D.M. wrote: "Many successful books for children 8 to 12 have been dumbed down to the extent they are a shadow of what they should..."I have often thought of this. Though not only dumbed down but completely washed of any "questionable or mature" content. I think it has a lot to do with helicopter parenting and constantly on the crisis of policing every part of a child's life. Having books that challenge children's thoughts and treat them with respect, and not simple idiots who cannot think of anything for themselves, seem to be very few and in between.
A particular place this seems to come from is political correctness.
I have found that this is also a trend in television shows and films.
Mod
Please compile a list (with GoodReads links) to all those 2018/2019 children's books that you consider utter garbage. Evidence, please.
Generally speaking, what I like to do when I am underwhelmed by a contemporary writer, I look up their page and see what they themselves are reading. When you see very little or no classics, no poetry, then their product cannot be of superior quality either. When you haven't learned from the master story tellers, Tolkien, Dickens, Cervantes, Dostoevsky, Homer, etc., etc. how to construct a story, when you haven't learned the requisite linguistic ability, it is garbage in and garbage out.
Evidence? LOL this is not a law court.If you want to see it for yourself do the following -
Go to a store a pick up a Roald Dahl book. Read a few pages until you get the sense of it.
Now do the same with any of the following:
A David Walliams book
A Dogman book
A David Baddiel book
A Dork Diary book
A Weedy Kid book
I'm refering to all parts of language - use of words, expression, voice, tone, underlying message, vocabulary, plot, variation of structure, pacing.
Dahl is rightly a renowned author. The rest are not a patch on his work on any of the above levels. And I would not classify Dahl as high literature.
And yet all those modern success stories are marketed as if they are great reads for children. My contention is that they are dumbed down, pale imations of what a great read could and should be. Dahl is no less fun either.
Mod
If you want to see it for yourself do the following -
Go to a store a pick up a Roald Dahl book. Read a few pages until you get the sense of it.
Now do th..."
One of the reasons we ask for examples is that this group is also used by parents looking for books for their children and in this case, getting a list of titles one might want to avoid or at least check out before purchasing could be a help. Yes, this is something we should all be doing anyhow but sometimes having a list or getting feedback helps.
Gosh, I do not think that I am familiar with any of the examples you gave and none of them sound even remotely interesting
Mod
If you want to see it for yourself do the following -
Go to a store a pick up a Roald Dahl book. Read a few pages until you get the sense of it.
Now do th..."
My problem is that you made a blanket statement that many 2018/2019 children's books are dumbed down, and only gave 5 examples out of hundreds of books published. Instead of looking at the books at the bookstore, you should check out the books at the library. Most libraries will have some of those trashy, but popular books you mentioned, but will also purchase the less well-known, but better written books available. Check out the books that the members of the Mock Newbery award group are discussing as possible Newbery award books. Those books are definitely not "trashy." Also, check out the award-winning books discussed in the "Miscellaneous Club." Those are also not "trashy."
I thought I’d weigh in as a mother of a large family with half of my children having special needs. Some of those “dumbed down books” have been a blessing for my special needs kids to read with confidence. We read aloud constantly and have a family culture which exemplifies a love of and an importance of classics. I’ve learned to be grateful for many things such a dumbed down books.
Mod
Good point, as we often do seem to forget that simple books can be a huge reading confidence builder, and that is or should be of prime importance. And also, everyone has different reading tastes and what I might consider as too simple for me could well work really well and be a total reading pleasure for someone else and vice versa.
5 top selling book series which was my point. Surprisingly I'm not going to list an entire library which no queston will contain better books.
Children's Books
Books mentioned in this topic
Little House in the Big Woods (other topics)Dance at Grandpa's (other topics)
Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens / Peter and Wendy (other topics)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (other topics)
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
John Senior (other topics)Olive Beaupré Miller (other topics)
Robert McCloskey (other topics)
Responding once again. In post #110, you state: "To do so, you nee..."
Sounds a bit like counting the amount of curse words, or how many times certain words are used etc. That might give you some insight, but unless you look at literature organically and not just mathematically and formally, you will, in my opinion, not get any worthwhile or usable conclusions (in fact, ignoring quality will make quantity skewed and suspect).