Anyone else just not that happy with the "kids'" versions of Classics? What to do?

[Halcyon]

SWB recommends the Bullseye Classics (including Knights of the Round Table and Robin Hood and others) I have looked at the Classic Starts (particularly the Swiss Family Robinson and Robinson Crusoe, which we own) as well as Stepping Stones and I'm just not thrilled by them. The dialogue feels wooden, the plots feel so contracted that in many ways they don't really resemble their original counterparts, and the vocabulary is dull. Am I missing something? I'd love my children to be exposed to these classics in their elementary years, and we do some reading aloud of the originals, but am I wrong in thinking that these abbreviated children's versions are...well....bad?

 

Would love ideas!

Edited March 22, 2011 by Halcyon

[Old Dominion Heather]

I'm not a huge fan of most of them. I do use the DK version of some of the classics that are much too hard for my guys to read. I confess that *I* abhor reading aloud. I'll buy them a book on tape any day rather than read aloud. (ducking for cover)

 

I truly think that the Great Illustrated Classics are a bunch of garbage. However, my kids have been blessed to be very good readers pretty young and so I know they will be ready for the real version at least by 5-6 grade, so I don't feel compelled to use them.

 

If I have a child that stuggles with reading, I'm not sure what I will do in that case.

[twoxcell]

Get the real thing an excellent book is worth waiting for. You can always read them out loud to your kids too.

[Just Robyn]

I always say I'll start looking at elementary versions of upper level classics as soon as I run out of quality literature written in its original form at the reading level of the dc. It hasn't happened yet and I don't foresee a problem ever arising.

 

Every time you choose to use a high school level book in elementary school you're choosing *not* to do an elementary level book. We'll get to those high school level books in high school, so not doing them early doesn't mean they won't get done. However, once the kids are in ms or hs we can't go back and read Charlotte's Web.

Edited March 22, 2011 by crstarlette

[TJinLOCA]

Get the real thing an excellent book is worth waiting for. You can always read them out loud to your kids too.

I completely agree with this!

 

Another approach is to use audio tapes to familiarize them with classic stories. We LOVE Jim Weiss and Odds Bodkin, who do audio story-telling versions of many classic tales. They are so much better than the watered-down storybooks. My kids listened to Odds Bodkin's version The Odyssey long before they were old enough to read it, and they had all of Jim Weiss' tapes (King Arthur, Greek Myths, Arabian Nights, etc.)

[mymonkeybug]

This is the exact reason I budget a teensy bit more into books for school and home use. I hit used book sales and EBAY often in hopes of finding the originals. As homeschoolers, we have the flexibility to sit and explain some of the wording and usage if the kids don't get it and heck, if we don't get it we refer to the internet and dictionary.

 

I simply don't prefer watered down edited kiddy versions of anything. JMO!

[silliness7]

SWB recommends the Bullseye Classics (including Knights of the Round Table and Robin Hood and others) I have looked at the Classic Starts (particularly the Swiss Family Robinson and Robinson Crusoe, which we own) as well as Stepping Stones and I'm just not thrilled by them. The dialogue feels wooden, the plots feel so contracted that in many ways they don't really resemble their original counterparts, and the vocabulary is dull. Am I missing something? I'd love my children to be exposed to these classics in their elementary years, and we do some reading aloud of the originals, but am I wrong in thinking that these abbreviated children's versions are...well....bad?

 

Would love ideas!

 

I'm not a fan of the "series" classics. But I have enjoyed classic re-tellings by Rosemary Sutcliff, Geraldine McCaughrean, Alfred Church, and some others. My son read this version of Don Quixote just for fun and loved it. We read some Michael Morpurgo books on Beowulf and Sir Gawain. My children were entranced. I know Mary Pope Osborne isn't high literature but my young sons loved her series on the Odyssey. Last weekend I was hunting for some good children's versions of Spenser and Dante and maybe a few others I can't remember now. Most were available at the library and I'm waiting for them to come in. I hope we enjoy them as much as the others.

 

Yes, I am intimidated by the Great Books. :001_smile:

 

ETA: Oh, you know, I am not a big fan of Lamb's Tales. I don't know why.

[Heather in VA]

We have several of the Usborne Young Readers series. I don't know what ages you are talking about but they have a few different levels and many classics.

 

Heather

[ondreeuh]

The dialogue feels wooden, the plots feel so contracted that in many ways they don't really resemble their original counterparts, and the vocabulary is dull. Am I missing something? I'd love my children to be exposed to these classics in their elementary years, and we do some reading aloud of the originals, but am I wrong in thinking that these abbreviated children's versions are...well....bad?

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but plenty of us like them. We have several Classic Starts and IMO they are a great introduction to the classics. We will read most of the original versions later, but right now they would be overwhelming to my ds. At least Classic Starts books get him to appreciate the storyline and make the books more accessible when he does read them.

[Dawn E]

I am trying to search for the quote that changed my whole outlook on these books. I hate to paraphrase, as they were such wise words, but I can't find the post. Anyway, the poster said since a person only gets one chance to experience a book for the first time, why not wait until the child is ready for the real book? I decided to ditch the "adapted" classics and instead wait until dd is ready for the actual classics.

[aliall]

We have used a few of the Classic Starts. I think they give a good retelling of the story even though the language and magic isn't there. I have been trying to read a passage or two from the original once in a while so they do get introduced to the original.

 

The plan is obviously to follow it up with the original when they are a bit older. Honestly, I don't think the complex language in some of those books would hold their attention right now, but they find the stories captivating. We are reading Treasure Island now and recently finished Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn.

 

ali

[Mama2two]

I am trying to search for the quote that changed my whole outlook on these books. I hate to paraphrase, as they were such wise words, but I can't find the post. Anyway, the poster said since a person only gets one chance to experience a book for the first time, why not wait until the child is ready for the real book? I decided to ditch the "adapted" classics and instead wait until dd is ready for the actual classics.

 

I agree, I haven't found any children's versions at all that I like. It ism uch better to read the real thing, even if you have to wait or even if they don't understand all the nuances

[nmoira]

I'd love my children to be exposed to these classics in their elementary years, and we do some reading aloud of the originals, but am I wrong in thinking that these abbreviated children's versions are...well....bad?

I don't use them, for this reason and the fact that it's abhorrent to me to take someone's life's work and massage, twist, edit (almost always selectively), diminish it to suit one's needs. If a classic can't stand on its own without years of careful preparation by spoon feeding simplified versions, then it doesn't deserve to be a classic. ;) And, perhaps most important for me: why would I want to steal from my child the joy of experiencing a classic work for the first time?

 

There are some exceptions in our home and homeschool. Knowledge of the mythology, folktales, ancient epics, religious works, and the like is important for its own sake, as these are foundational cultural stories. These are what we focus on in the early years, along with children's classic literature.

[nmoira]

Anyway, the poster said since a person only gets one chance to experience a book for the first time, why not wait until the child is ready for the real book?

That may have been me, if only because I doggedly endeavor insert it into any and all threads about kids' "versions" of the classics (though I do try my best to avoid those asking about specific series... it's hard though). It's not snobbery if it's out of love, right? :tongue_smilie:

[mommymilkies]

I don't use them, for this reason and the fact that it's abhorrent to me to take someone's life's work and massage, twist, edit (almost always selectively), diminish it to suit one's needs. If a classic can't stand on its own without years of careful preparation by spoon feeding simplified versions, then it doesn't deserve to be a classic. ;) And, perhaps most important for me: why would I want to steal from my child the joy of experiencing a classic work for the first time?

 

There are some exceptions in our home and homeschool. Knowledge of the mythology, folktales, ancient epics, religious works, and the like is important for its own sake, as these are foundational cultural stories. These are what we focus on in the early years, along with children's classic literature.

 

:iagree: I abhor abridged and children's versions of most classics. That said, we did like Black Ships Before Troy.

[Mom in High Heels]

The Stepping Stones Classics are the worst!!! They have loads of incomplete sentences in them and drive me batty. I refuse to read them to Indy anymore because they offend me. I have yet to find a good children's version of the classics, which is sad because Indy is NOT ready for some of the full versions (and I'm not ready to read them out loud).

[Cindyz]

 

Every time you choose to use a high school level book in elementary school you're choosing *not* to do an elementary level book. We'll get to those high school level books in high school, so not doing them early doesn't mean they won't get done. However, once the kids are in ms or hs we can't go back and read Charlotte's Web.

 

 

:iagree: This!! There are so many wonderful children's classics that we'll stick with those for now and enjoy as many as possible while we can. We have plenty of time for the rest when he can enjoy them in their original form.

[silliness7]

I have seen abridged classics of Little Women and the Little Princess - books like that. I don't read these abridgements because I think the originals are accessible to most children and such a wonderful treat and experience in the exact way they were written.

 

I do not feel that way about Beowulf, for example. It's inaccessible to many, if not most people. I tried to slog through it even after I familiarized myself with the story. No, thanks. But it is a terrific tale and I'm glad another author took the time to put it in modern English. Otherwise, I really would have skipped the tale altogether. Now it is one of our family's favorites and perhaps will serve as the inspiration for someone to take on a more scholarly version on their own one day.

[Jami]

There are some quality adaptations for younger children. Ambleside Online makes use of many of them. Authors like Lang, Pyle, Kingsley, Church, Colum...mostly Victorians. If you search Yesterday's Classics you can find many of these.

 

But for the most part, this is just one area that I have to disagree with TWTM as written. The best preparation for reading the Great Books is not familiarity with the plot, but rich language and challenging syntax. Reading the "good" books before the great ones accomplishes this. Again, Ambleside is a great resource for high quality children's literature. The Great Books Academy also builds on this philosophy. Myths, fairy tales, well told historical tales (James Baldwin's project) are an ideal foundation. Not modern, dumbed-down adaptations that just basically include the same characters and plot.

[Momling]

I have seen abridged classics of Little Women and the Little Princess - books like that. I don't read these abridgements because I think the originals are accessible to most children and such a wonderful treat and experience in the exact way they were written.

 

I do not feel that way about Beowulf, for example. It's inaccessible to many, if not most people. I tried to slog through it even after I familiarized myself with the story. No, thanks. But it is a terrific tale and I'm glad another author took the time to put it in modern English. Otherwise, I really would have skipped the tale altogether. Now it is one of our family's favorites and perhaps will serve as the inspiration for someone to take on a more scholarly version on their own one day.

 

I agree -- I'm okay with abridged versions of stories that began in oral cultures - stories that weren't created and written by the same author - like Beowulf or the Iliad or Odyssey. They were abridged long before they ever became a kids' classic book. The story itself is what is particularly cool about these translated and abridged stories. But an abridged version of an author like Dickens or Austen loses too much beautiful language!

[Crimson Wife]

I'm not a fan of the "series" classics. But I have enjoyed classic re-tellings by Rosemary Sutcliff, Geraldine McCaughrean, Alfred Church, and some others.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[kristinannie]

I agree -- I'm okay with abridged versions of stories that began in oral cultures - stories that weren't created and written by the same author - like Beowulf or the Iliad or Odyssey. They were abridged long before they ever became a kids' classic book. The story itself is what is particularly cool about these translated and abridged stories. But an abridged version of an author like Dickens or Austen loses too much beautiful language!

 

:iagree:

[hollyfred2002]

There are classics and there are classics. The problem with some of the classics is that they aren't all that good. I think Swiss Family Robinson is terrible whether you read the original or the adapted version. I have several Classic Starts and thus far we only read through 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in its entirity. I know that the WTM is very into reading classics to children, but I think we need to be more particular even with so called classics. AND there are certainly modern classics that are definitely worth reading that are generally easier for all of us to understand because the language is more accessible. I am not saying not to read older classics, but I think they are not all created equal. Some of the messages in the classics are not what I want my young child to receive (when he's older, there will be room for discussion, but as a young child, I fear he will just swallow some of it....Swiss Family Robinson case in point.)

 

So, I guess I would choose classics that don't need to be adapted for the age of your children. Charlotte's Web, Hatchet, The Oz series...etc.

[Legomom]

I adhere to TWTM's recommendations pretty closely but I have deviated from using the abridged classics somewhat. I really like the idea of waiting to read the originals and have substituted some children's classics from Ambleside and other lists instead.

 

We did really enjoy the Shakespeare for Kids series and performed Hamlet in our co-op. My kids continue to enjoy them and I think the books will help provide familiarity with the stories and also take away some of the intimidation factor when they are older. It has also enabled us to attend Twelfth Night and have a better understanding of it and enjoy it more.

 

One thing that surprised me with my kids was that they actually wanted to read some of the abridgements (e.g. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea) so I let them -- it only took 20 minutes or something anyway. Also, they took one look at Little Women and asked for the abridgement. So at this point, I use my judgment but try to go with unabridged books when possible. Also, if reading the unabridged seems like too much we listen to it on CD (we are doing this with Tom Sawyer) or even have one of the kids read a book aloud. One of my sons felt intimidated when he looked at Heidi, so he has been reading it to the rest of us and it has been great. He has a separate time for assigned reading and we do the read aloud in addition more for fun.

 

As a final comment, we loved the abridged version of Kidnapped on CD that SWB recommends. It was terrific.

[Aurelia]

As a general rule, I really don't like abridged books. I would rather read the classic aloud and retain all the elements the author intended than a "dumbed down" version. I will occasionally make concessions for well-adapted stories, from authors like Pyle or McCaughrean.

[Harriet Vane]

I really cannot stand kids' versions of adult classics. I generally find the rewrite to be quite wooden.

 

My kids read literature that is at their level. There is sooooo much quality children's literature that I don't feel a need to have them read dumbed-down adult literature.

 

I also do read them some classics out loud. Sometimes what is hard for a child to read on their own can come alive when read aloud. Oliver Twist is one that has dense language that was hard for my dd to read at age 10 or 11 (don't remember exactly how old she was) but she really enjoyed the story as I read it aloud.

[stripe]

I recently read the Classics Starts version of the Swiss Family Robinson to my kids. I actually own the real version. One child had read an excerpt (I don't know if that portion had been abridged) in another collection we own, and it was referenced in a book we were reading at the time so I thought it might be nice to be familiar with the basic idea of it without reading the whole thing. I am generally not a fan of abridged versions. This one reenforced my position. It was riddled with typos and had some odd, stilted language in parts (missing word or two or something?) or repetitive phrasing (the same verb used twice in a row sort of thing). I think we all admired the cool contraptions but were a bit aghast at the "shoot first, identify later" method of dealing with wildlife!

 

Anyway, there are plenty of good-quality children's books -- Abel's Island by Steig is a sort of rodent version of the book -- shorter but with complex language.

Edited March 23, 2011 by stripe

[melissel]

Without having read the other responses, I don't do abridged/junior versions of classics (though I wouldn't say no if DD begged for one in spite of my objections). There's plenty of time for the real books, which, IMO are too important as they are to abridge or water down, and there are plenty of wonderful books to read now that DD can appreciate and glean from. I've read a few books to her in the past that I'm now sorry I introduced so early. She enjoyed the basic story lines, but she didn't get nearly as much out of them as I would have liked. I'm more careful now as to what I introduce and when.

Edited March 23, 2011 by melissel

[melissel]

I agree -- I'm okay with abridged versions of stories that began in oral cultures - stories that weren't created and written by the same author - like Beowulf or the Iliad or Odyssey. They were abridged long before they ever became a kids' classic book. The story itself is what is particularly cool about these translated and abridged stories. But an abridged version of an author like Dickens or Austen loses too much beautiful language!

 

:iagree: I was going to back and add something like this to my post, but Momling said it very well for me :D

[TheApprentice]

I believe MCT recommends actually reading the unedited versions of classics. I try to read "a few grades up" to my ds (10 and 8). We always read the original versions.

[alpidarkomama]

I really don't like simplified versions of anything. I just wait until they're ready to read or listen to whatever book it is. A very few exceptions have been a few retellings of ancient classics, and some retellings of Shakespeare stories and opera librettos.