Using abridged/adaptations for WTM Literature

[funschooler5]

I'm curious: how many of your kids will read unabridged work? This year, a lot of our literature has been adapted works. We especially like the Illustrated Classics from Candlewick Press (Don Quixote and Jonathan Swift's Gulliver). In fact, the only unabridged work we've read this year is Wordsworth, bits from Paradise Lost, and Robinson Crusoe.

 

Is this bad? Is it okay for a logic age kid to read some adaptations now, and then read the unabridged versions in high school, or will they end up being unprepared for the real classics?

[Melissa in Australia]

It is OK with me,

that way they aren't scared of the unabridged when they are in the next stage.

[8filltheheart]

We don't read adaptations. We often listen to full edition audios when they are younger. (my ds LOVED Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the Iliad, The Odyssey, Beowulf, etc when he was in upper elementary/middle school.)

[funschooler5]

It is OK with me,

that way they aren't scared of the unabridged when they are in the next stage.

 

See, that's what I was thinking too. I don't want them hating it now and then saying "oh no" when they get to the real thing in high school.

 

We don't read adaptations. We often listen to full edition audios when they are younger. (my ds LOVED Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the Iliad, The Odyssey, Beowulf, etc when he was in upper elementary/middle school.)

 

My daughter couldn't get through Gawain and the Green Knight (we had the book version). She's read adapted versions of the the Iliad, The Odyssey and Beowulf. She's a great reader, but whenever I put an unabridged version of something in front of her, she moans about it. Robinson Crusoe was the only one she has enjoyed so far. I'm hoping that reading it has built her confidence up a bit.

[Veritaserum]

It is OK with me,

that way they aren't scared of the unabridged when they are in the next stage.

 

:iagree: Dd reads the original unabridged for some books and adaptations of others. Rhetoric will bring readiness for more originals.

[JennW in SoCal]

I think another point to consider is that there are so many other titles out there that a 13 yo would enjoy that there is no reason to tackle certain classics until they are older. It isn't just reading level that is an issue, but maturity, the life experience to really understand and appreciate a classic.

 

Reading is supposed to be a pleasure at this age. To whet their appetites for classics consider that Dickens is accessible, as is Austen, Sherlock Holmes and other A. Conan Doyle titles. Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings go a long ways, too, in preparing them for deeper material.

 

My younger ds read adaptations of the Odyssey when he was younger and got sick of it, actually. He didn't want to tackle the original, so we studied the Iliad instead, last year in 10th grade. He had listened to Beowulf when he was younger, didn't particularly like it, but we studied it in 9th grade again and he got more out of it, but still didn't like it. I don't regret introducing those works at a younger age -- you never know what might strike their fancy, but it I think all our other reading was much more valuable for him in the long run, did more to prepare him for studying the classics. All the Jules Verne books and Sherlock Holmes stories, for instance.

[Laura Corin]

We have used abridged versions for works which are mythological or which are so much part of the culture that simply knowing the story is important (rather than appreciating the literary merit). So we did children's versions of Homer, Robin Hood, King Arthur, etc. We also used abridged Shakespeare, but only as an introduction to seeing the full thing in the succeeding days.

 

Instead we used children's classics (Frances Hodgson Burnett, Elizabeth Goudge, E. Nesbit, etc.) in order to build up the children's reading ability, before going straight to easier classics - Conan Doyle, Jules Verne, etc.

 

Laura

[Another Lynn]

I think another point to consider is that there are so many other titles out there that a 13 yo would enjoy that there is no reason to tackle certain classics until they are older. It isn't just reading level that is an issue, but maturity, the life experience to really understand and appreciate a classic.

 

Reading is supposed to be a pleasure at this age. To whet their appetites for classics consider that Dickens is accessible, as is Austen, Sherlock Holmes and other A. Conan Doyle titles. Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings go a long ways, too, in preparing them for deeper material.

 

My younger ds read adaptations of the Odyssey when he was younger and got sick of it, actually. He didn't want to tackle the original, so we studied the Iliad instead, last year in 10th grade. He had listened to Beowulf when he was younger, didn't particularly like it, but we studied it in 9th grade again and he got more out of it, but still didn't like it. I don't regret introducing those works at a younger age -- you never know what might strike their fancy, but it I think all our other reading was much more valuable for him in the long run, did more to prepare him for studying the classics. All the Jules Verne books and Sherlock Holmes stories, for instance.

 

We have used abridged versions for works which are mythological or which are so much part of the culture that simply knowing the story is important (rather than appreciating the literary merit). So we did children's versions of Homer, Robin Hood, King Arthur, etc. We also used abridged Shakespeare, but only as an introduction to seeing the full thing in the succeeding days.

 

Instead we used children's classics (Frances Hodgson Burnett, Elizabeth Goudge, E. Nesbit, etc.) in order to build up the children's reading ability, before going straight to easier classics - Conan Doyle, Jules Verne, etc.

 

Laura

 

:iagree: :iagree:

 

Children's classics will stretch their ability to read more challenging vocabulary and sentence structure. Posts like this always make me wonder why I didn't stick with Ambleside Online :D. My oldest ds was later to read than some. But I read AO books aloud to him for 3 years, and now he tackles books that I would never have read at his age.

[Heather in WI]

I think it depends on the book, but I would certainly work toward having a 13 year old read unabridged versions. (Of course, even I can't get through the unabridged Don Quixote! BLECH!!!! LOL!)

 

We "allow" (LOL!) abridged works ... my boys devour them in grades 1-3! But, we've also encouraged them to read the "real" versions. Our oldest two have independently read more than a handful of unabridged classics already. I hope that doesn't come across badly. I say that to encourage you! Sometimes I would think my oldest might not be able to take on a work ... a few pages in and he's flying!

Edited November 28, 2010 by Heather in WI

[Ester Maria]

Other than the original work, there are three things, not two.

 

There are adaptations, which are essentially plot retelling, but via a different language/style. Since literature as art is defined by those elements far more than by the contents itself, adaptations are a bad choice. People who use adaptations usually think the work through a plot, which is a very supeficial approach to the whole thing. Might work nicely for young elementary, but not really beyond - focus, rather, on that which children can tackle to build up their stamina for the actual words of the authors rather than adaptations.

 

There are abridged versions, which are a better choice as they save language and style, but a big downside of abridged versions is the fact that they take parts and present it as a whole. A work is a sort of a complex unity, nothing "has" to be inside, so by default everything which is inside is important, as the meaning things have they have in relation to other things inside; by ripping the book half of its contents you're depriving it also of the important semantic connections. It's a bad habit to get into, literature as art is not read that way.

 

Then there are excerpts, the least of evils. The difference between excerpts and abridged works is in the unity - the former don't pretend the unity of the latter, don't take parts to create a whole, but only present this specific part. If approached correctly, through the prism of this part only and this is only for the illustration of the work, not the thing itself, excerpts can do wonders to expose your children to works they otherwise wouldn't have time to read and to open some additional doors for them and make them curious about things.

 

I don't do abridged versions and I don't do adaptations; excerpts I'm fine with, if carefully chosen and if not overdone (if not taken to replace the actual readings, but are only studied in addition to full readings).

[Jyniffrec]

I've been thinking through this a lot lately. I had come to the tentative conclusion that there were certain books that needed to be introduced early and then re-introduced in each stage. My thinking was also that children can't possibly read *all* of the classics and that introducing them to abridged versions would at the very least give them a familiarity with books that they might not otherwise encounter. I should also add that my children don't mind hearing stories over and over again and that reading different versions has not been a problem.

 

My son doesn't like anything that is fiction and modern unless it has to do with a major historical event. Using abridged books and re-tellings has been very helpful for us, although we use originals when we can (especially with audio books).

[regentrude]

Although I have seen many poor, low quality adaptations which I would not want my kids to read, I find it extremely hard NOT to use the occasional adaptation because this would deprive my children of a lot of wonderful stories.

For instance, my kids have been familiar with Greek mythology since early elementary age - through retellings for young readers. My 13 y/o is now able to read the whole Homeric epics - but I would not have wanted to wait this long to acquaint them with those wonderful legends and myths.

My kids have read several retellings of the King Arthur legend - many years before I can expect them to read Malory. They have read about Beowulf (which I think even my 13 y/o would not be able to read in the original yet), the Nibelung saga (before they can read the old German verse epic), Norse myths (before they are ready fro the Edda) etc.

I myself have grown up surrounded by those timeless stories, re-told by the best writers of my home country for young readers. Those are high quality retellings, not cheap and worthless knock-offs. I believe they serve an important purpose - and may for some people be the only way they will ever be acquainted with those works which form a basis of our culture.

Honestly, I'd much rather have a person know what a Trojan horse is from a youth retelling than be ignorant because they never read Homeric epics in verse.

 

I would like to touch on another aspect: many of those myths and legends have been passed on orally before (and even after) being committed to writing. They have been changed over time, changed from person to person - and we may have ONE written version that survived, which does not mean that it is THE version of the story. Those works, IMO, are so important that the essence is in the story itself, and not so much in the way a particular version is written.

So, I would want to make a big distinction between works who have transcended our culture to the degree of the story of the Trojan War, the Arthurian legends, the Norse myths - and more recent works of literature which have been conceived and written down deliberately in ONE version: Crime and Punishment, Anna Karenina, Grapes of Wrath, Oliver Twist. Cutting the latter up into children-sized versions may preserve key aspects of the story, but loses all that makes them "literature".

[Ester Maria]

Those are high quality retellings, not cheap and worthless knock-offs. I believe they serve an important purpose - and may for some people be the only way they will ever be acquainted with those works which form a basis of our culture.

I hear what you're saying and I'm inclined to agree with you regarding that didactic aspect; however, reading Schwab in one's early childhood and studying the classical antiquity in the middle (let alone high) school context are two different things in my eyes. Even if Schwab is a stepping stone to Homer - and a pretty good one at that! - his retellings can only take you so far as they're plot-based. As such, plot-based stories, they can pretty much be grouped in the same canon of "stories and myths" that we tell and read to our children when they're small. There's perfectly nothing wrong with that... as a stepping stone, as we both agree. :)

 

However, I would use it for a limited number of works which have really infiltrated in the sphere of general knowledge regarding the plot and the motives. Past Bible, Homeric epics or a random few other things, I wouldn't use adaptations, and certainly not past double digits.

I would like to touch on another aspect: many of those myths and legends have been passed on orally before (and even after) being committed to writing. They have been changed over time, changed from person to person - and we may have ONE written version that survived, which does not mean that it is THE version of the story. Those works, IMO, are so important that the essence is in the story itself, and not so much in the way a particular version is written.

But that's exactly the point - you cannot appreciate the orality of Homeric epics, nor their metric qualities, unless you read them - in verse. Their formal qualities are that which makes them oral literature, not the fact they deal with one mythological cycle. To know that and to notice that, you really need to read the text, not a retelling of the text.

 

If we aren't talking about Homeric epics but rather about theatre, we do have a definite form; in fact, theatre signs the first definite literacy in a previously oral culture, with a fixed text and the beginning of the institution of autorship. It doesn't matter that those stories exist in slightly different versions as well or that those stories were in a sort of flux in a culture they originated in. The public knew the stories, they didn't come to theatre to see a story and "find out" what happens (this is a fairly new concept), they went to theatre to see a specific showing of the known story, a specific interpretation of it on the stage, from a formal point of view. This is why the text matters: we don't have a "general" Medea, we have a very formally specific Medea. With these lenses you might wish to try to approach the literature of classical antiquity - it's not that we have some general remaints, what remains are actually very specific things, which are moulded in very specific ways. And while on the first, primary level it is about the plot, past that very first and very primary level children should be taught to understand the specific nature of the literature that was perserved and thus do work towards gradually approaching it as art, as interpretation, rather than an informative text. Those weren't informative texts, they shouldn't be taught as such. To put it in Jakobson's terms, it's not about the referential function, it's about poetic function of the text - that's the function which makes some text an artistic text rather than a different type of text.

 

Wow, I really ramble a lot so early. :D

[radiobrain]

I don't have a problem with it, even though I agree with Ester Maria about her POV.

 

I have tried to read originals when I can, and have no problem reading adaptations, abridgements or even graphic novels/comic books about others. My theory has always been that some classics are really difficult to read and understand, but if your read a 'version' of the story when young, and your kids enjoy that...then when you choose to assign it when they are older, you get less resistance- as they are familiar with the story and remember liking it.

 

I also think this can help in planning in the later years as well. There are so many great classics to choose from, you can eliminate some duds that your kids didn't like at all. ;)

 

My 10 yo son really wanted to read Moby Dick, and I was not going to squash his enthusiasm for reading that book by making him read he original too soon, or conversely ignore it by putting it off. My compromise? A graphic novel by Will Eisner and a children's version with illustrations. He was satisfied. Now I know that he will gladly read the original when I assign it later.

 

If you always state that what you are reading is NOT the original, I see no problem with it.

Edited November 28, 2010 by radiobrain

[regentrude]

The public knew the stories, they didn't come to theatre to see a story and "find out" what happens (this is a fairly new concept), they went to theatre to see a specific showing of the known story, a specific interpretation of it on the stage, from a formal point of view. This is why the text matters: we don't have a "general" Medea, we have a very formally specific Medea.

 

But that's exactly it: would it not be a much more authenticexperience to come to Greek tragedy as the intended audience did: already knowing the story? Because then, one can concentrate on the form, the specific rendering - one does not have to wait with baited breath to find out what happens.

That's one reason I find it important that my student already knows the story from some other source, which would usually be a prose retelling of the legend or myth. We recently read Oedipus Rex - and the only way to feel the whole horror throughout the play is to know, as the audience did, from the very beginning, who Oedipus is. Had we been confronted with the play as our first encounter with the Oedipus story, we would have perceived it completely different - and not as intended by Sophocles. It takes on a whole different dimension to have this knowledge. (I felt this more acutely with Oedipus than with any of the other tragedies we read.)

[Ester Maria]

But that's exactly it: would it not be a much more authenticexperience to come to Greek tragedy as the intended audience did: already knowing the story? Because then, one can concentrate on the form, the specific rendering - one does not have to wait with baited breath to find out what happens.

That's one reason I find it important that my student already knows the story from some other source, which would usually be a prose retelling of the legend or myth. We recently read Oedipus Rex - and the only way to feel the whole horror throughout the play is to know, as the audience did, from the very beginning, who Oedipus is. Had we been confronted with the play as our first encounter with the Oedipus story, we would have perceived it completely different - and not as intended by Sophocles. It takes on a whole different dimension to have this knowledge. (I felt this more acutely with Oedipus than with any of the other tragedies we read.)

Yes, I agree with you about knowing the story and then tackling the formal specifics and the fact there is no "original work" when it comes to stories themselves so that ancients are largely a different situation compared to latter literature. :) What I'm not okay is the cases of "definite original work" retold, such as retellings of Anna Karenina and alike, but the orality of the earlier cultures allows a different approach for those works. But then it's not Homer or Sophocles retold, rather, it's "myths of the Trojan and Theban cycle". As such, they're a stepping stone towards reading those texts which we do have preserved.

 

(Basically, we agree.)

[8filltheheart]

I actually agree with both of you. There is a distinction between a young child listening to an adaptation that is exposure to the "essence" of the original vs. illustrated classics which completely distort the story. 2 very overly simplified examples would be a children's version of Moby Dick that reduces the story to a man chasing a whale (definitely a distortion of the storyline) and The Children's Homer which attempts to retain the language and authenticity of story.

 

The "Children's Illustrated Classics" series falls into the distorted category for me. Lamb's or Garfield's Shakespeare OTOH are helpful as introductions for young kids to his plays prior to seeing an actual production.

Edited November 28, 2010 by 8FillTheHeart

[regentrude]

I'd like to offer another thought: I would want to make a distinction between assigned and self-selected reading.

Aside from myths and legends, as previously discussed, I would not assign an abbreviated classic (such as Dickens etc) for schoolwork. I consider self-selected reading, however, differently. My kids did attend a public elementary school, were not challenged, and the only thing that kept DD sane was unrestricted access to the school library. When she was in 1st grade, she practically ate up the complete assortment of Great Illustrated Classics and loved them. For a beginning reader, the format of one page large print text/ one page picture was great; the content was more involved than the typical beginning-to-read chapterbooks.

Are those literature? No, I cringe when I see the simplified sentence structure. They did, however, inspire my children to read more and formed an important stepping stone on the way to literacy. So, while I would never consider these a substitute for the real thing, they did serve an important purpose.

I personally would not have wanted to limit my child's free reading selections - I have always let them read to their hearts content. That did include "twaddle" (yes, they both went through a phase when they liked Goosebumps), but to me this is like eating candy: if the overall diet is balanced, the occasional candy will not do any harm. (Actually, being exposed to both great and low quality writing has helped them develop critical judgment - they now recognize inferior books when they encounter them.)

[8filltheheart]

When she was in 1st grade, she practically ate up the complete assortment of Great Illustrated Classics and loved them. For a beginning reader, the format of one page large print text/ one page picture was great; the content was more involved than the typical beginning-to-read chapterbooks.

.

 

I also think there is a huge distinction between your dd reading those in 1st grade vs. the fact that this thread originated on the middle school board.

 

I am not an advocate of illustrated classics in general b/c in the world of lit, there are so many other great books out there. But for middle school kids, my personal view is no. I would much rather them listen to an audio if the reading level is beyond their ability to access on their own.

[Harriet Vane]

We have never done adapted readings. There is so much quality children's literature out there. I would really rather focus on our time on the best literature for the stage the child is at. I simply wait until the child is old enough to enjoy the real thing. It's worked wonderfully well so far--neither child has feared anything I put in front of them. They didn't know to be afraid because I never told them to be so.

[RootAnn]

My kids love audiobooks, so that is sometimes the way we go around here.

 

However, I'm completely fine with abridged works that maintain the spirit of the original and are written to adapt them to a lower-level reader (3rd-4th). As long as they aren't exposed to them overmuch (2-3 different retellings), I have found it to make the original work more accessible without causing the child to lose interest.

 

I grew up with Reader's Digest Condensed Books. I didn't get to many of the full-length classics until my adult (pre-children) years, but I knew the stories of many from my mother's collection of RD CB.

 

As my brother would joke, you never knew they cut anything out of great classics like, "A Tale of a City" and "The Two Musketeers."

[Bluegoat]

I tend to agree with those who said it is one thing to read a children's version of the Trojan War account, and another to read an abridged Homer. I don't think I would be inclined to do the latter.

 

I think I feel more comfortable with children's versions of histories - something like The Children's Plutarch. I can see myself using something like that as a source for history for younger kids more than as a substitute for an adult book. I don't really see any need to gently introduce classic works myself.

 

I tend to see use of those kinds of things as potentially good for elementary aged kids though, not middle school.

[funnygirl]

GREAT thread!

[WeeBeaks]

Abridged and retellings seemed to work for my oldest so far. He is 9-1/2 as reference, entering into logic stage in terms of age next year but in terms of his making connections already. He read the abridged/retellings on his own, not assigned reading. He is now starting on many of the originals, Tom Sawyer last week (i.e., an easier one). He is thrilled to see some of his old favorites, and realize that the first retelling left out a lot. It is familiar and yet new and fresh for him concurrently in a way. I hope that it will continue that way as he has a passion for books his friends think are "boring."

 

My next child is 6 (1st grade). TOG actually introduces retellings and abridged as assigned. I was shocked. :D Yeah, I was a bit snooty. But younger DS is a struggling reader, and not as advanced as his sibling was. I realize this is a middle school board so won't go into lots of detail, but my point in mentioning it is that it gaves him and his brother some common ground to discuss books. I LOVE that. They bicker so much, it is music to my ears to hear them bickering, eh discussing, Tom Sawyer together.

[Catherine]

Homer, Malory and Shakespeare in the originals, only the originals?

 

If so, I'm surprised they are able to-my kids, who I consider to be reasonably good readers, could not have tackled these originals in their entirety at that age. As a read aloud, with plenty of paraphrasing and discussion, maybe. *I* couldn't begin to get through Malory in the original. I wouldn't even think twice about handing them an abridgement.

[GoVanGogh]

I know this is an old thread, brought back to life via (now deleted) spam earlier today.

This is actually a topic that has been weighing heavy on my mind since reading the "rigor" thread a few weeks ago on the general forum, so I am going to go ahead and post here.

 

I have a homeschool friend that never exposed her children to anything other than abridged books, even in middle school and high school. ("They didn't like to read." "Unabridged books are too hard." "I don't see the need to wade through an unabridged book." All are comments I have heard the mom say.)

The oldest child flunked out of college their first year, as they struggled to keep up with the reading required in college. Guess I'm just reflecting back on my own college experience and how much reading I had to do - and how deep many of the books were. I was grateful that I had read many classics throughout my youth, as I found that experience to be so beneficial in college.

 

I am always putting in a plug for the book "Classics in the Classroom" by MCT, but he does such a wonderful job explaining why all children need to be exposed to quality literature. This quote from his book sums up what I have been thinking about lately:

 

"Bibliophobia in adults sometimes takes on the quiet but lethal form of delay: of passively ignoring classics, or of assuming that children are somehow not ready for better books. Will they get ready if we prolong their inexperience? As a result of delay, some children find themselves entering junior or senior high with a serious handicap in reading experience. They have been protected from their own education, and now they are suddenly confronted with college-preparatory readings that are more difficult and sophisticated than anything they have ever read. We who hesitate have lost our children."

 

 

Ester Maria, do you mean to say that your children, beyond the age of 10, read

Homer, Malory and Shakespeare in the originals, only the originals?

I do think it is a gradual process. My 10-year-old can/does read Shakespeare. We use the "No Fear" series and DS will read and compare the modern to the original. I have no doubt that by the time he is in high school, he will be able to read and understand any Shakespeare handed to him to read.

We do follow the literature list on Ambleside. DS has grown up listening to advanced vocabulary and syntax, which I think is the downfall of abridged books. One can easily visit any bookstore and compare the opening chapter of The Secret Garden in both the original and the abridged and see the significant difference in vocab and syntax.

 

I also think there is a huge distinction between your dd reading those in 1st grade vs. the fact that this thread originated on the middle school board.

:iagree:

At this age, I am thinking about college prep and what I can do to make sure my child will be successful in high school and college. Abridged books do not fit into that plan.

[GoVanGogh]

Ack...I didn't realize this was an old thread. Oh well.

:tongue_smilie: I know.

I read this thread this morning and realized it was an older thread, but that "rigor" thread (did anyone here read it?) really touched a nerve with me. I couldn't get this off my mind.

How to be rigorous when those around you are not?

How to keep plodding along with original works when those around you are not?

Seeing my friend's homeschooled child flunk out of college really knocked me for a loop. :001_huh:

Several people commented on the "rigor" thread about staying clear of people who do not hold education to the same high standard. I had thought our friendship could withstand our educational differences because I am not one to be pulled down, nor is my DS. But I am really starting to see our children grow apart, which surprised me. I know it shouldn't have surprised me - they have so little in common these days - but I didn't see it coming so soon or so fast.

[GoVanGogh]

Well to be fair there could be many reasons he is flunking.

Oh, I know. I just keep replaying everything that my friend has said or done over the past few years and been thinking on why/how her child wasn't prepared for college. Not fair of me, I know. :glare: But - in light of "that" thread, I can't let it go.

(And to be brutally honest here: My friend actually quit homeschooling a year or so ago, though she isn't 'unschooling,' either. So there is more racing through my mind than simply abridged/unabridged books.)

 

But our new group is filled with people who feel pretty much as I do. So they are out there.

We are in one hs group that is very academically oriented. Just everyone is busy, um, studying. :lol:

I've got to find some middle ground, I think.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I generally stick with complete texts and try not to use abridgements. There are very few exceptions; examples being Shakespeare's stories by Lamb or Nesbit or Black Ships Before Troy by Sutcliff. The exceptions I make are usually based on the literary merit of the retelling itself. I bought a few to go with a curricula I purchased and will never repeat the experience. If the student isn't ready to read Jane Austen then a child's version or abridged version just won't be the same, I'd rather wait for them to mature enough to actually read Austen otherwise it just seems as though they are missing the point only to simply to gain some sort of plot familiarity that really isn't needed later and they are certainly missing out on the original author's voice and style-which is often part of the joy and merit of the work.

 

Of course I hated the Reader's Digest books that several family members shared when I was a kid. I'd keep thinking if it is a great book why don't you want to read all of it? As I aged I would think to myself-are you actually getting the lesson, moral, point, or any other message that the author was trying to impart if the book has been edited by a 3rd party or are you just getting the 3rd party's interpretation of the book? I guess I have imposed a similar thought process on the children's version of all this.

 

Besides which-there are so many wonderful children's and young adult classics--why would I want my kids to miss out on those to read a modern retelling/abridgement of Pride and Prejudice? Then they have just missed out on some great kids lit and P&P. Seems like a waste of time.

[Roadrunner]

I just wanted to point out that if you are reading a translated book, you are reading an adaptation. I only realized that when attempting to read Tom Sawyer to my son. I have read that book in original (but translated into my native language) when I was 7/8, so I foolishly assumed 7/8 year old could read and comprehend it in English as well. :001_smile:

I wonder what Hermann Hesse is like in German versus translated in English. I bet it's easier to read.

 

Having said all this, I wouldn't allow my kids to read anything but the original for their assigned reading past elementary school. I think there is nothing wrong reading abridged and/or adapted versions in early elementary. My son fell in love with Oliver Twist and The Three Musketeers after reading short versions over the past summer (before starting 1st grade). He always pulls of Dumas off the shelf (the original, but in translation :001_smile:) and asks when he can read the entire thing.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Roadrunner

[Ester Maria]

Homer, Malory and Shakespeare in the originals, only the originals?

 

If so, I'm surprised they are able to-my kids, who I consider to be reasonably good readers, could not have tackled these originals in their entirety at that age. As a read aloud, with plenty of paraphrasing and discussion, maybe. *I* couldn't begin to get through Malory in the original. I wouldn't even think twice about handing them an abridgement.

Homer in translation (except for the excerpts studied as a part of Greek lessons), Malory and Shakespeare in their original language, yes, and not abridged, but EITHER full works (when possible) EITHER excerpts which are not chosen the way that one basically abridges the work and presents those excerpts instead of the unity of the work (as I explained two years ago in a previous post in this ressurected thread :D).

 

You must also keep in mind that my children do not have problems with Latinate vocabulary. Their vocabulary struggles are with the older Germanic layer of the English language, not with the Latinate / French layer, so that makes the whole thing a LOT easier. For what they do not know, there are dictionaries and commentaries.

 

I require a paraphrase of some works (with a commentary), along with the analysis of syntax of the passage (if they learned syntax yet, in middle school they can pretty much do it already), when I want to be absolutely sure they understand what they are reading. I even turn a paraphrase into a part of the exam sometimes by choosing a random passage from what they read and having them paraphrase it in writing, as a part of the exam (I allow dictionary use to find synonyms, as in any case the dictionary does not help much if you do not understand the passage syntactically and if you had not read it before to know which synonyms are a reasonable option and which are not).

I also require a paraphrase aloud sometimes when we study things together and I especially require it for religious literature in original, otherwise they are all "yeah, yeah, we understand the general meaning" and that makes me go NUTS, because of course they understand a general meaning, but the whole point is that in the parts they study they understand MORE than a general meaning.

 

(Sorry for the delay of few days in answering, I was moving.)