Dickens in Grade 1?

[tillie]

I have been searching the boards for book lists for my dd age 7. I see Dickens, Alcott, and others show up on some lists and I am stunned. There is no way my 7 yo is prepared for the subject matter in Dickens or the dialect. Little Women seems like a big leap as well. I know my dd is a solid reader for her age and handles the Boxcar series, Eve Bunting's books, and a few select Beverly Cleary books. Dickens is a huge leap.

 

Are other 7 yo really reading these classics in the original text?

 

We are currently reading through the "Little House" series as a RA at bedtime. She is able to read the words but has lots of questions about some of the items referenced/period specific words. This would frustrate her if she was given it as an IR.

 

If your children are reading these classics independently, how do they handle the challenge of new words, unfamiliar terms, etc.?

[FriedClams]

I know some do, but we have not. I wanted my kids to have things to enjoy, savor, and meet when they were a little older. We did Little House, lots of Sonlight books, lots of fun, silly books, lots of Kipling, Nesbit, Lewis, etc. Fun and light does not mean "easy" or "twaddle". As an aside, I don't like "children's" or "adbidged" versions of books - so if the kids don't enjoy the book in the origional - we wait on it. There are too many wonderful books for younger kids to enjoy - and too few lovely ones for tweens - that we're just holding off.

[Catherine]

Matilda is the only one I know of-LOL-but I think she was a preschooler when she read Dickens.

[regentrude]

My DD is gifted and was an early voracious reader who in 1st grade devoured a few hundred pages a day. No WAY she would have been able to read Dickens in the original - that came around 4th/5th grade.

Can it be that people are referring to adaptations for young readers? There are plenty of series such as Great Illustrated Classics which present classics like Dickens and Alcott but are greatly simplifying the language. It retains the storyline (somewhat simplified), but loses all that makes it "Dickens".

My DD read those in 1st/2nd grade. Those books are easy to read and familiarize young readers with the classics. I agree with the previous poster: I don't personally like them much because the language is so poor and would prefer my kids to read the originals.

I do not think many 1st graders will get anything out of attempting to read Dickens in the original.

[suzf242]

My dd at 7 had read Alcott but not Dickens, as well as a number of other classics. (We don't do the Illustrated Classics, either.) We have a lot of books at home, and I let her read whatever she wants for pleasure as long as the content is appropriate. I don't worry about what she understands. She will often reread the same book several times and memorize passages or poems that she likes. I believe that each time she reads, she understands a little more and enjoys the book on a slightly deeper level. Sometimes she will ask me about a word or situation she doesn't understand, but this is usually after she has read the book several times. I think she just enjoys trying to make sense of it on her own.

 

Take care,

Suzanne

[Momling]

My feeling is that there is a small window of time when fairy tales or Winnie the Pooh or Peter Pan is appealing. We have a lifetime to read Dickens, but only a few years to read children's books.

[Rosie_0801]

My dad read A Christmas Carol to my sister and I when we were 6 and 8. We thought it was the greatest thing ever. That might be because Dad was actually reading to us though ;)

 

Rosie

[Mom in High Heels]

Can it be that people are referring to adaptations for young readers? There are plenty of series such as Great Illustrated Classics which present classics like Dickens and Alcott but are greatly simplifying the language. It retains the storyline (somewhat simplified), but loses all that makes it "Dickens".

 

 

This is what I was thinking. We read Oliver Twist, A Christmas Carole and Great Expectations last year (2nd grade) in the GIC versions. Indy loved them. They do lose some of the Dickensian feel, but the main story was there.

We also read the GIC versions of The Three Musketeers, The Hunchback of Notre Dame and several others. Indy loved them all. When he's older he'll read the full versions, but for an introduction, I think those books were fine. I like that they gave him the basic story so that when he does read the full text, he'll be familiar with them.

[angela in ohio]

I'm really puzzled by this. I can't remember ever seeing Dickens for a 7 yo, and I pay attention to reeading list threads (always looking for ideas. :001_smile:) I would say those are either read-alouds (though Dickens seems a bit mature for a 7 yo,) or adaptations. Are you talking about A Christmas Carol, maybe? I think that's a lot different than Nicholas Nickleby. :001_smile:

 

My little guy is an advanced reader. He has read some big thick books at 7 and 8 yo, but there is no way he could do Dickens right now. He just wouldn't have the life experience to get anything out of it.:001_smile: (My 14 yo had a Dickens phase a few years ago, and she still jokes with me about, "letting me read books about murdered prostitutes. :D)

 

My girls did read Alcott at 8 or 9. That's really a whole different level than Dickens, imho.

 

My dc do read a lot of classics at a young age, though. As far as unfamilar words... I am not too concerned. They will pick up some in context. I am more interested in filling their mental stores with quality language examples: sentence structure, etc.

[snickelfritz]

:tongue_smilie:

 

She's reading Sonlight 2 intermediate/advanced readers, American Girl books, Pony Crazed Princess (shhh), etc... as independent reading

 

I do read aloud books like The Secret Garden, Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, etc.. No Dickens. Although, I can see where A Christmas Carol could be fun.

Edited October 26, 2010 by snickelfritz

[abbeyej]

I believe those are intended as *read*alouds* at that level -- even for most "gifted" readers. Some children *can* read some of those books on their own after they've heard the language read aloud for a while, but usually even for the best readers that doesn't come at 6.

 

As for Dickens, the only one I'd attempt reading aloud to a first grader would be A Christmas Carol -- it's short and fairly easy to understand, and often toward the holidays it's possible to then take kids to see a live production that draws on much of the language from the book.

 

Audio books are a particularly great way to introduce kids to classic English literature and get them used to the language and cadence they'll be encountering in their own reading in a few years.

 

Both of my children were early and voracious readers, but I wouldn't expect either of them to read "A Christmas Carol" or "Little Women" on their own before at least ~8 years old and probably closer to 9-10 -- and they are by no means "usual" in terms of reading ability.

 

(BTW, I'm not a fan of Great Illustrated Classics type retellings. We have used a *few* retellings of certain things along the way -- when they're retold by an actual author [and not some hidden team for a publisher] using good language and text lifted from the original -- but generally speaking I prefer that young children read books in whole, as they're able to handle them. There are plenty of wonderful classics that fluent young readers *can* handle -- and they can get to the classics at 10-12+...)

Edited October 26, 2010 by abbeyej

[Dmmetler]

A good dramatization may help.

 

My DD thoroughly enjoyed seeing "A Christmas Carol" on stage at just before turning 5, and recently was thrilled with "A Midsummer Night's Dream", but there's no way she's ready to read Dickens or Shakespeare yet independently, no matter what her Lexile score says!

 

There are so many good, fun sweet books for mid-range readers that are still solid literature that I see no reason to push her ahead into reading books that will be tedious for her simply because they're on some list. So far, Sonlight's "Advanced" lists seem to do a good job of picking out books that she enjoys and have some depth.

[mohop]

In the WTM's 3rd grade reading list, they list adaptations of Dickens and not actually the originals. I could see how A Christmas Carol could be a good read aloud, but heck, I can barely read Dickens now, so I think it's perfectly normal for it to be above your 1st graders level!

[2_girls_mommy]

My 7 yr old (now 8) mostly reads adaptations of Shakespeare, with the exception of speeches or poetry that I assign as memorization. She read Little House independently at 7, but was very familiar with the time period.

 

She on her own picked A Christmas Carol, unabridged off of the holiday shelf at the library last year and read it. But it required a bunch of discussion. I do not think she got the full text because of some of the vocabulary obviously. I would scan what she had read and talk to her about it. We in the end read an adaptation after which helped her to understand better. She also learned a LOT about the time period which she was just totally enthralled with at the time. So I think she will need to read it again, and I would not suggest to her reading any other Dickens just yet. But I won't stop her if she wants to.

[ReidFamily]

Wow. I had always assumed those books were to be read by the parent to the child.

 

I also can't stand the abridged versions but eventually I might cave and read a few if for no other reason that it takes us forever to get through the originals because my 2 year old makes read-a-loud time few and far between, mostly only before bed for chapter books. The abridged versions are much shorter. I noticed at Costco a few weeks ago that they have a nice collection of hard backed classics for very reasonable. They are all abridged. At Barnes and Noble they have the original classics for $9.99 each and they are buy 2 get one free. They are nice editions with built in book marks. Plus we get the 20% off home educators discount.

 

For us, it is a gradual process. Maybe we are the only one who have this issue but this is what has helped us.

 

My daughter is 5 and until recently had no desire to listen to chapter books, even as a read-a-loud. She would much rather grab a golden book, a Dr. Seuss or *gasp* a Disney Princess or Barbie book. Until recently she didn't want to watch any movie unless it was animated. She has just recently started enjoying movies like Heidi or Shirley Temple, etc. To graduate her we started by reading the original fairytales to movies she was familiar with and comparing and contrasting the originals to the Disney version. She has loved this. For our first chapter book we read the original Wizard of Oz and she did great with that. My daughter has needed a visual picture of what she knows and what she's all ready been interested in to make the leap. We have the original Jungle Book and Black Beauty to try next. Right now we are reading A Little Princess which she has never seen before so I'm hoping she'll take to it. She picked this book based on the title. ;-) We are only a few chapters in so far. If she struggles with it I'll let her watch the movie first and then continue with the book.

 

I understand this wasn't really the original question but maybe other parents have children like mine that don't automatically have a taste for classics.

 

Clearly our experience would be different if we were a household that didn't permit Barbie and watching Disney movies in the first place but we are. I grew up being allowed those things, enjoying those things and also having a great respect and love for "classics" so I'm not too worried.

[MadsandLilysMom]

My feeling is that there is a small window of time when fairy tales or Winnie the Pooh or Peter Pan is appealing. We have a lifetime to read Dickens, but only a few years to read children's books.

 

I couldn't agree more. I feel the same way about picture books vs chapter books. I read chapter books to my girls (ages 4.5 and almost 3) at lunchtime, but the rest of our day is filled with wonderful, quality picture books. The only reason I read chapter books is because it hurts my eyes to read sideways and I don't like have to pause and show the pictures on every page. We do listen to the classics on audio books in the car or when we are coloring and working puzzles.

 

There is such a small window of time when these books are appealing to little ones I don't want to miss it. Why rush them to grow up when they will do it soon enough on their own?

 

Laura

[mnemom]

I have an Usborne book of abridged Dickens stories that my 5 y.o. enjoys. I would say it is about as abridged as Dickens stories can get. But even in that book, they have a picture of a guillotine in the Tale of Two Cities. My dd is not too sensitivie about those things and it didn't seem to bother her, but I did feel like I should have pre-read that because I'm not sure introducing those things (i.e., people getting their heads cut off) is appropriate for a 5 y.o. Or a 7 y.o, for that matter.

[LoveBaby]

I'm assuming that the lists are implying that they be read aloud to the child, not read by the child themselves. I can't imagine a 1st grader reading "David Copperfield" and getting much more out of it than a headache!

 

I don't particularly like adaptations either or abridged books, so unless I feel like my kiddo's can read them well on their own in the original, we read them aloud and/or wait until they are older. I don't really see the point in hurrying them through some of these classics at a young age, when there is a plethora of excellent reading material at a 1st, 2nd and 3rd graders level available!

[tillie]

Thank you all for your replies. I appreciate the candid/honest opinions about the abridged versions and non-classical literature. I needed a boost to my morale. Reading your responses has been a wonderful reminder to trust myself and my children when it comes to what to read.

 

Thanks so much for the advice.

[Cindyg]

We're doing a "Dickens year" this year, in the 7th grade, and it's plenty challenging enough. There is no way ds would have benefitted from hearing these stories in the first or second grade. As others said, there is really amazing children's literature out there. Enjoy it.

[mammaofbean]

even if my child could read dickens at age 7 i would be more comfortable handing her a copy of playboy. i really would need a child with an understanding of the time period and who i could first have a very frank conversation with about anti-semitism, sexism, prostitution, caste systems, murder, christianity and domestic violence to assign dickens. i can't imagine being ready to do that until those sorts of topics already started entering her radar, maybe age 10 at the earliest.

[lionfamily1999]

We read A Christmas Carol in second grade, together. Ds read aloud, with me next to him to help with the bigger words. When he didn't understand something, he'd ask and I would reread that passage and together we would figure out what it meant (I didn't just feed it to him ;) ).

 

He loves Dickens. I've read bits and pieces of other stories to him and A Christmas Carol is becoming tradition :)