What do you think about the Graphic Classics Books?

[calledtobehome]

We were at the library Friday and my 7.5 yr old and 6.5 yr old found an entire shelf of Graphic Classics books. We checked out The Odyssey Homer. What do you think of these books? Are they good for young readers and for us to read together?

 

I found a link to the book we have.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Odyssey-Graphic-Classics-Fiona-Macdonald/dp/0764142763/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1289708332&sr=8-10

[Closeacademy]

I think that any book that gets a child to read and love to read is a good book. My oldest has read a lot of comics and graphic novels and from allowing this she now loves reading.

 

Go for it. :001_smile:

[Farrar]

Turning classics (or even just popular novels like The Babysitters' Club or Artemis Fowl) into graphic novels is a big thing now and there are several imprints doing it. I don't know this particular series, but most of them are getting high marks from reviewers. I find graphic novels really onerous to read with my kids. There's lots of pointing and doing voices involved to make it make sense, kwim? But if you can do it or they can read them on their own, or mostly on their own, then go for it.

[abbeyej]

I consider these the Wonka-candies of books. Not even m&m-level nourishment, and not something I personally enjoy, but for the occasional treat for a child who otherwise eats (reads) well, not the end of the world.

 

They are *NOT* akin to reading the originals (or translations) or even a well-written children's retelling (say Sutcliff's retellings of the Iliad and the Odyssey).

 

And a steady diet of such books can make more challenging, language-oriented books less appealing.

 

But as occasional, non-school treats? Sure. I'll let 'em through. We read plenty of broccoli. ;)

[PeterPan]

Doesn't it really depend if it's a step up for your child and a means to an end? If it's a step up, BY ALL MEANS take the step! But if it's a side-step or going backwards (which of course varies with the dc), then that's a bad thing. My dd is very, VERY into comics and basically anything visual (TinTin, etc.). She has read comic versions of Shakespeare, which at the time were a step up for her. That was good. But right now if she reads a lot of comics it's more in the potato-chip category, meaning I have to keep them in check and make sure she's consuming enough of the meatier stuff.

 

I wouldn't let it go on long, and I wouldn't let it go unchecked. But if it's helping them move UP in reading level and move forward toward reading more than they were, it's a good thing. I would very quickly translate that momentum into other accessible, but slightly more meaty, books to keep them moving forward. The Great Illustrated Classics series has rewrites of many classic books on a say 3rd grade reading level. They might be a good next step to move into. Reading lists like in the VP catalog can give you more ideas. Your library should have a whole section of easy/juvenile readers, things like The Littles and whatnot. I would try to connect to those. I never just let my dd go into the library and select books unchecked. It was always subject to approval.

 

I think it's also wise to ask WHY your dc needs these intermediate helps. Maybe there's some dyslexia or a processing disorder or lack of phonics understanding or vision problem or ADD or some other issue? Sometimes you're seeing in the dc at 5, 6, or 7 hints of problems that are going to be very obvious and unhideable in a few years.

[Farrar]

I consider these the Wonka-candies of books. Not even m&m-level nourishment, and not something I personally enjoy, but for the occasional treat for a child who otherwise eats (reads) well, not the end of the world.

 

They are *NOT* akin to reading the originals (or translations) or even a well-written children's retelling (say Sutcliff's retellings of the Iliad and the Odyssey).

 

And a steady diet of such books can make more challenging, language-oriented books less appealing.

 

But as occasional, non-school treats? Sure. I'll let 'em through. We read plenty of broccoli. ;)

 

I really disagree with this. I think the attitude that some books ruin you for reading "good" books that is bandied about on this board is really starting to get to me. First, I just don't believe it in my gut, as someone who read a lot of "junky" books as a kid. Second, the only studies I've ever seen suggest the exact opposite - that allowing children to choose their books is more important in building readers than reading "good" books - such as this one talked about in the NYT several months ago. Who decides what are the "good" books anyway? There are some that most (but not all) people would agree on, but the vast majority would be up for debate.

 

If I wanted to introduce my kids to the Odyssey, I would absolutely do one of the good children's retellings (and, in fact, did last year) because there's such good stuff out there and because I love comics but I have a rule against reading them aloud because they make me nuts. I like for my kids to get to choose their own books and for me to choose some for them - for connections to history, art or just to introduce them to other things. Like I said, I don't know this particular graphic novel retelling so it could be quite mediocre, but I've read others that I would absolutely not call candy any more than I would call any quality retelling intended for kids candy - unless you're the sort of person who assumes all graphic novels are junk. As someone who loves graphic novels, I would strongly disagree with that.

 

Sorry. Not meaning to single anyone out personally. I'm just a bit tired of seeing this put out there as fact around here. I know you're just saying it how you see it, but I just disagree. Gee, I think I kind of snapped there. :tongue_smilie:

[PeterPan]

You've got to remember people are coming from very different places. Abbey's dc, especially the ds, are VERY advanced. So her experience with them might be very different from someone whose dc is in a different perspective. That's why I said it's all about getting them to move up. For some kids it is a move up, a help, a boost and tool, and for some the graphic novels are not.

 

Now the other thing is that there are differences in these series. The Shakespeare ones she read were quite meaty. The ones I was looking at in the Timberdoodle catalog today were, well, sad. But you know, if that's moving up for someone, I'm still all for it. You just wouldn't want to stay there forever or fail to deal with any underlying issues.

[EmilyK]

I totally agree about hating to read comics aloud to kids (and I love reading picture books to them, so I don't have a problem with visuals -- it is the boxes and voices as described above -- gives me a headache!). But it is really good for my boys to read for fun, and they both love comics. Frankly, so does my husband. I can't stand to read them to myself -- so go figure. My older son is such an academic egghead (and I adore that about him!) that I don't really see loving the comic book/graphic novel format as correlating to not achieving academically.

 

I do have one graphic novel I adored -- the Maus books. Still something I think about. Not for kids though.

[PeterPan]

Yeah, I'm not really sure about the logic with reading aloud easy reader books, comics, etc. That doesn't make sense to me. I always read to dd things she wasn't ready to read for herself, things that modeled where I wanted her to go. There are things you allow in moderation as they are learning that aren't what you put before them as a paragon of good speaking or good literature, kwim?

[abbeyej]

Hm. I didn't say that reading *any* junk food books would "ruin" a child. I said that I think a steady diet of that can be harmful. That I think those books should be read in moderation and on a child's own time, not as "school". And yes, certainly I think it's reasonable for a child to have a say in what he or she reads, and I've allowed my kids to read plenty of fluff over the years. I read the equivalent of literary fluff myself on occasion. :)

 

But this board is here to support us giving our kids a classical education, is it not? And towards that goal, I believe in encouraging kids to read the best that they can most of the time. If that means Frog and Toad 80% of the time and Dora or Rainbow Fairies the other 20%, that's fine. If it means Jane Eyre and Frankenstein 80% of the time and Diary of a Wimpy Kid 20% of the time, that's fine with me too. Or throwing in some graphic novels from time to time, if the child enjoys them.

 

But I'd far, far, far rather encourage a young reader to read Ramona or The Bears on Hemlock Mountain or The Boxcar Children than a graphic novel retelling of a classic that I hope they'll read in full a few years from now.

 

I have a few qualms with using graphic novels for a majority of the reading that a young reader does. (I'm not getting into the literary merit of some of the "great" graphic novels -- I'm referring to comic books geared toward children.)

 

First, there is little literary depth. The vocabulary is minimal. It's a mostly visual and not a linguistic medium. In terms of brain activity, it's more like watching television than reading text. And, again, I don't forbid my kids to watch television. But I don't consider it to be the same as reading a good book.

 

Second, for young children learning to read, visual tracking of the text is an important skill. Comic books encourage your eyes to dart all over the page, taking in information here and there with little practice at left-to-right tracking. While I think this is fine occasionally, as an instructional approach, it can be counter-productive.

 

I'd also agree with other objections to graphic novels as read-alouds. I'd rather that time be spent on reading good language that's somewhat beyond a child's ability to decode, but that they can (perhaps with the occasional explanation from mom) comprehend and enjoy. For kids who thrive on the visual element, there is a nearly endless supply of beautiful picture books that also use complex and beautiful wording. For read-aloud material, I would much prefer these over "easy reader" materials which the child will be able to work through on his or her own.

[nmoira]

But I'd far, far, far rather encourage a young reader to read Ramona or The Bears on Hemlock Mountain or The Boxcar Children than a graphic novel retelling of a classic that I hope they'll read in full a few years from now.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

We do have a very few classics in graphic novel form -- primarily Greek and Roman mythology -- but not literature. I don't introduce these adaptations for the same reason we steer clear of retellings of classic literature: You only get one first chance to experience a story. One. I don't want to rob my children of their first chance by giving them a diluted and bowdlerized "introduction." Saying we need to ease kids into classics by doling out simplified versions to enhance later understanding seems to be akin to saying these stories works either can't stand on their own, or will be inaccessible to our children otherwise. Bosh. I strongly suspect that if a child reads nothing but the Lang coloured Fairy Books, a smattering of mythology and a good collection of Bible Stories prior to the age of 14 (and I have a good friend whose library was limited to precisely this), that child will be amply ready to ready to start tackling classic literature. However, since there is a weath of wonderful children's literature out there, we need not limit ourselves to these. ;)

 

To the OP: I have nothing against graphic novels per se, and we do have a number of series, including some manga. However, they represent a small portion of our home library. I have no issue with myths and legends, epics etc. in graphic form or in retellings. Children are better served by familiarity with the Odyssey, for example, than by saving it until they can read it in ancient Greek.

[chiguirre]

Ds and I read the Perseus and Medusa book from this series. We both liked it, but he needed my help with some of the words. It's not written at an early chapter book level and some of the words (especially names) will require help. Depending on how much Greek mythology your kids know, you might have to fill in details there too. Overall, I'd say this series is intended for an older audience than the Step Into Classics books that SWB recommends for 3rd grade. Some of the pictures are pretty intense, the story was pretty faithful to the original and you'll have to help with name pronunciation and some vocabulary (I'm basing this on a kid who's reading the Step into Classics for school).

[Mama Lynx]

Second, for young children learning to read, visual tracking of the text is an important skill. Comic books encourage your eyes to dart all over the page, taking in information here and there with little practice at left-to-right tracking. While I think this is fine occasionally, as an instructional approach, it can be counter-productive.

 

 

 

From my (admittedly limited) experience in helping struggling readers, I think the above is an extremely important point.

 

I agree with Abbey's entire post, though. Sure, my young readers read some graphic novels, and pure fluff. But they are never confused with good reading, even when the subject matter is similar.

[Niffercoo]

I'll add my own .02 from several perspectives. (I'll go ahead and admit my bias against graphic novels. Yuck. So there you go.)

 

Perspective as a reader who grew up on junk books - it killed my desire to read anything that was challenging. Two years ago I embarked on a classics reading adventure and the first few of them (Pride & Prejudice, Wuthering Heights) were such a challenge that I had to have complete silence when I read. I had to read some parts over and over again to understand it. 2 years later, having exercised my brain in this way with complex literature, it's still a challenge but it's much easier.

 

Perspective as a mom of children with special needs (specifically with regards to language/reading comprehension) - I would prefer that they be exposed to classics by either listening to audio books or having me read aloud. We can go very slowly, with me answering questions as they come up. This is my preference for my children, rather than have them do the graphic novel version which I feel is predigested. Right now I'm reading aloud Bulfinch's Mythology to all 3. We read just one short segment per session but they all seem to be comprehending on their own levels.

 

Perspective of a mom of a bright child, voracious reader - just this week my middle child told me that she didn't like "The Yearling" because it's harder to read. I suggest she read more slowly. She said she doesn't LIKE to read more slowly. It's hard work. It's more fun to read fast. She has read and re-read the Harry Potter novels and just Friday took The Red Pyramid to the doctor with us to re-read it, and she reads fast (like me). And you can do that when the writing isn't complex and the vocabulary is lower. But then you're not really working your brain.

 

Again, just my own opinion. Not trying to be elitist, obviously, since I have children who will struggle to complete the very basics of a classical education - and who may not ever really work at rhetoric stage level.

[Farrar]

I think one of the things that's rubbing me the wrong way here is the elitist attitude toward graphic novels. I think that, as a medium, they're their own thing. I would argue that many comics aimed toward young readers are among the great graphic novels. Not every great graphic novel has to deal with topics of the depths of Maus or Persepolis, just like not every great novel has to deal with "adult" topics. Graphic novels do encourage kids' eyes to, as Abbey said, look around the whole page. Reading them is a different experience where the reader takes in different information than in a book. Just like reading a traditional novel, it's a skill - one some people are better at than others and one you can become better at through practice. The ability to read an image - to understand the meaning of the expressions, the conventions, the symbols, etc. - is a worthy skill in my opinion. I really object to the idea that somehow a retelling can be great but a graphic novel retelling is "predigested" and lesser. I don't buy it any more than I buy the idea that books are better than movies or movies are better than TV or chapter books are better than picture books. They're different media. They have different conventions.

 

Again, I have never seen any evidence presented that reading graphic novels ruins you for other reading or discourages you from reading traditional classics - no matter how many you read. I know I'm fighting an uphill battle on this forum. I love classic literature and I want my kids to have the skills to appreciate all forms of writing. However, I also want to encourage them to make their own decisions about the literary quality of things and to enjoy the works that speak to them.

[*anj*]

 

But this board is here to support us giving our kids a classical education, is it not? And towards that goal, I believe in encouraging kids to read the best that they can most of the time.

 

First, there is little literary depth. The vocabulary is minimal. It's a mostly visual and not a linguistic medium. In terms of brain activity, it's more like watching television than reading text. And, again, I don't forbid my kids to watch television. But I don't consider it to be the same as reading a good book.

 

 

 

We can go very slowly, with me answering questions as they come up. This is my preference for my children, rather than have them do the graphic novel version which I feel is predigested.

 

Well said, ladies. I'm giving you each 50 rep points for those posts!

[Halcyon]

This is an interesting discussion. I have found that the more "good" literature my kids read, the less they're interested in "junk", so I encourage them to read more "classic" literature. My son refuses to read, for example, Diary of a Wimpy Kid (given to him as a gift, really LOL) or Goosebumps, even though I didn't really outright say he couldn't read them (I did discourage it, however LOL). He does read Bunnicula, however--is that junk? :tongue_smilie:

 

I, for one, think some of the graphic novels are great in their own right. They've sparked a real interest in learning more about the stories: in most cases we've already read the story in question in its more "classical" rendition, or we do soon after my children finish the graphic novel version. And my boys love greek myths and know far more than I do on the topic. When my boys read Jason and the Golden Fleece graphic novel, we then read excerpts from an abridged kids' version and they really knew quite a lot of the story line already.

 

Off-shoot for those of you interested in reading more about the phenomenon of "gross-out" books catering to boys: The Book Mama has a reprint up of a really interesting article on boys and gross out humor books that was in the Wall Street Journal.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Halcyon

[Halcyon]

I think that, as a medium, they're their own thing. I would argue that many comics aimed toward young readers are among the great graphic novels.

 

:iagree:

[calledtobehome]

Our day was busy so I'm just now reading the replies. We don't have many books like this in our home but they seem to be drawn to comic type books for some reason. I'm still teaching my 7.5 yr old phonics as he just doesn't seem to have the confidence like my 6.5 yr old does when it comes to reading. But when I read to them I make sure I'm reading classic good literature.