Sweet Valley Kids

[Paige]

Anyone know about this old series? I was thinking of getting some of these books for my girls who are identical and blonde like Elizabeth and Jessica but I've never seen one in person. I am guessing they may be at about a 2nd grade reading level because of the age of the girls in this series. I can't find them in my library and with shipping, it is cheaper to buy several at once in a lot on ebay but I'm hesitating to buy a bunch having never seen any of the series. I used to love the Sweet Valley High books when I was a kid, but I didn't even know they had all the other series. FWIW, I'm not expecting these to be great literature or anything. I am looking for something that they will think is fun and may be interested in reading on their own. They like the Rainbow Magic Fairies and the Wind Dancers pony series when they read to me but I still can't get them to want to read on their own.

[waa510]

I was a big Sweet Valley reader as a kid. The series, along with Babysitter's Club, were the catalyst to my being a reading fanatic. Not classic or quality literature in the least, but they served a purpose in getting me interested in reading on my own. The stories are simple, yet have a lot of talk about school situations such as cliques (Jessica is in one..something about unicorns in the name and all the girls must wear purple in some form but I don't believe that starts until the middle school series ??). They have a fair amount of conflict with friends and family throughout the series but it introduced me to a lot of those situations as I was really sheltered in a small school as a kid. I think the way in which Elizabeth was portrayed as bookish and not as popular and Jessica being popular and careless about school could be a bit negative, but it never effected me in my schoolwork.

 

I don't know if I'd have my girls read it as I think there are other series out there that might be better for them. My dd will be into chapter books next year, maybe earlier, so I've given it a lot of thought.

[Paige]

Thanks. I have only thought about it for them because my girls are the same age as the girls in the kids series and they are identical and similar looking to the Sweet Valley High twins. They like reading about twins like them. I first thought of the Bobsey Twins because I liked those at their age but they are all boy/girl twins and I didn't think my girls would find that as appealing.

[coffeefreak]

The author has come out with sequels, and I don't know what they're like.

 

Here's a link:

http://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Valley-Confidential-Years-Later/dp/0312667574/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303309165&sr=8-1

 

Also, I have to agree with TWTM on this one, the more they read these types of books, the less they can tolerate the "good" books. Sweet Valley High was where I started with romance novels, and I was quickly reading Harlequin in Jr High. I lost all interest in any assigned reading, and it was a struggle into my adult life to read anything besides romance novels. Thankfully, we started homeschooling.;)

 

HTH!

Dorinda

[Homeschooling6]

I read much of the series when I was a teenager. My dd will not be reading this series.

 

I remember Bruce untying Jessica's bikini top in one and salty kisses, backstabbing etc.

 

There were some good friendships but I'd rather my dd read something else. I don't think she would even consider the series.

[coffeefreak]

Thanks. I have only thought about it for them because my girls are the same age as the girls in the kids series and they are identical and similar looking to the Sweet Valley High twins. They like reading about twins like them. I first thought of the Bobsey Twins because I liked those at their age but they are all boy/girl twins and I didn't think my girls would find that as appealing.

 

I also didn't know they had a younger girl's series. Have you looked into any Beverly Cleary? Mitch and Amy were twins. What about Ivy and Bean or Sophie the Awesome? I just think there is better "fluff" out there than SVH.:001_smile:

Blessings!

Dorinda

[TheAutumnOak]

 

Also, I have to agree with TWTM on this one, the more they read these types of books, the less they can tolerate the "good" books. Sweet Valley High was where I started with romance novels, and I was quickly reading Harlequin in Jr High. I lost all interest in any assigned reading, and it was a struggle into my adult life to read anything besides romance novels. Thankfully, we started homeschooling.;)

 

HTH!

Dorinda

 

:iagree:

I was an avid reader of Sweet Valley Twins and then Sweet Valley High...I also started reading Harlequin in jr. high and I did loose interest in my assigned reading...I started reading romance novels, then stopped reading them when I was about 21 because of the sexual content (I had just become a Christian)...

 

I really wish I had read better books...

[TheAutumnOak]

I read much of the series when I was a teenager. My dd will not be reading this series.

 

I remember Bruce untying Jessica's bikini top in one and salty kisses, backstabbing etc.

 

There were some good friendships but I'd rather my dd read something else. I don't think she would even consider the series.

 

:lol: I still remember that exact scene as well!

 

ETA: That was in the Sweet Valley High books...The Sweet Valley Twins is when they were a bit younger...

Edited April 20, 2011 by TheAutumnOak
Something to add

[Paige]

The girls are only 7 in this series so I'm assuming there will be no sexual situations. I was thinking it may be a little more advanced than Nate the Great, like Junie B Jones, but hopefully less bratty, and Rainbow Magic with less magic, or Magic Treehouse but not so annoying. I can't read Magic Treehouse with them happily because the writing grates on my nerves too much. I also ordered them an Ivy and Bean book and I hope they like it. They are not ready for Beverly Cleary. Their reading vocabulary and stamina are not good enough yet for those.

[SquirrellyMama]

I also read Sweet Valley as a middle schooler/teen. I'm not letting my kids read any of them. I know the SV Kids might seem innocent enough but I wouldn't get them started on that series.

[Homeschooling6]

:lol: I still remember that exact scene as well!

 

ETA: That was in the Sweet Valley High books...The Sweet Valley Twins is when they were a bit younger...

 

Ooops! Sorry, you're correct. I forgot about the younger years. I did have a few of the younger ones. I just prefer to stay away from the series.

[Farrar]

Even the Sweet Valley Twins series, where they were in middle school, has very little that I would think is inappropriate for kids able to read the books. Even the high school books are sort of moralistic by today's standards - kids who do drugs immediately die from it, if I recall correctly! The thing that I remember is there is just a huge volume of nastiness among the kids in both the high and the twins series. I saw some of the kids books years ago, but I can't remember that much about them, but I would guess it's toned down, but still there. That said, I went through a phase of really loving these (around 4th and 5th grade) before I found other books. So I hardly think they're harmful.

[Homeschooling Again]

:lol: I still remember that exact scene as well!

 

ETA: That was in the Sweet Valley High books...The Sweet Valley Twins is when they were a bit younger...

 

I remember that too! I wouldn't recommend these books (though I read them and am and have always been an avid reader). I don't think these books prevented me from reading assigned books or even good books (I read a lot of Bronte, Hemingway, and Steinbeck as a teenager) and I never got into romance novels, but, wait, I guess I did get into romance novels ... Shel something I think was the author's name -- lots of sex in those books. Also I read those horrible books about the kids locked in the attic.

 

I don't like the content of the SVH books and can think of a ton of other books girls should read instead. I really, really don't think they are good for girls' self esteem. Instead, I think they prepare girls for following stuff like 90210 and being materialistic. They are worse than comic books because they are written as though their absurd lifestyle is attainable.

[Farrar]

And all the childhood Sweet Valley fans here know about the new grown up book that just came out, right?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Valley-Confidential-Years-Later/dp/0312667574/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303314524&sr=8-1

 

(I haven't read it though...)

[TheAutumnOak]

I don't like the content of the SVH books and can think of a ton of other books girls should read instead. I really, really don't think they are good for girls' self esteem. Instead, I think they prepare girls for following stuff like 90210 and being materialistic. They are worse than comic books because they are written as though their absurd lifestyle is attainable.

 

Now that you mention that, I do remember feeling like I wasn't as pretty, popular, or had the lifestyle the girls in the book had...I distinctly remember at 11 years old running around trying to find "ruby red frosted nail polish" because the book mentioned that was what Lila Fowler (I think that was her name) was wearing on her nails...The book also mentioned her nails were perfectly done at a salon (I knew that was out, so settled on trying to find the polish :tongue_smilie:)

 

I am one of those people who did not succumb to peer pressure...I always thought the idea was foolish...But I do remember their lives being 90210ish, even when they were young...And I do remember being affected by it...

[JudoMom]

Now that you mention that, I do remember feeling like I wasn't as pretty, popular, or had the lifestyle the girls in the book had...I distinctly remember at 11 years old running around trying to find "ruby red frosted nail polish" because the book mentioned that was what Lila Fowler (I think that was her name) was wearing on her nails...The book also mentioned her nails were perfectly done at a salon (I knew that was out, so settled on trying to find the polish :tongue_smilie:)

 

I am one of those people who did not succumb to peer pressure...I always thought the idea was foolish...But I do remember their lives being 90210ish, even when they were young...And I do remember being affected by it...

 

I remember being envious of Elizabeth's room, and really wanting her large writer's desk :lol:.

 

To answer the OP--I wouldn't let my dd (if I had one) read any of the Sweet Valley books. I'm sure the younger books are innocent enough (I don't remember anything from them, but then I have a poor memory), but I wouldn't want to open that can of worms. They do suck you into the lives of the girls, and I definitely wouldn't let mine read the Sweet Valley High books, so I'd go the route of not introducing them at all.

[Haiku]

Honestly, I would not get my kids started on this stuff. If they start, they will most likely want to continue. I have nothing against fluff books, but these books go way beyond fluff. They are just mind-numbing, formulaic candy that does nothing at all for the reader. I look back on the time I wasted, completely wasted, on ridiculous, brainless series books when I was young, and I wish I had that time back.

 

There are good series books for kids. Try to get your dds started on something better ... they have American Girl books for younger readers, and Beverly Cleary books, and Andrew Lost, and Encyclopedia Brown ... pretty much anything is better than Sweet Valley Anything. Maybe your girls would like the Clementine books? They are akin to the Ramona books.

 

Tara

[blakereese]

And all the childhood Sweet Valley fans here know about the new grown up book that just came out, right?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Valley-Confidential-Years-Later/dp/0312667574/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303314524&sr=8-1

 

(I haven't read it though...)

 

:lol::lol: I was reading the review on this the other night. :o Looks pretty bad. I was sort of interested, though...always wondered what happened to those girls. ;) My best friend in junior high and I used to read ALL of the SVH books. We loved them. And when we were in college and would go out, we would use the names Elizabeth and Jessica (we didn't want to give out our real names at the clubs). :lol: It cracks me up to think about it now.

 

I agree that they are fluff in the worst way, but I did read (and enjoy at the time) every one of them. I also read real literature during those years and have gone on to be a voracious reader. Not that SVH had much to do with that. :001_smile:

 

I don't think I would recommend the younger series to 7 year olds, especially since they are still learning to read. I doubt there is any challenging vocabulary in these books and there are so many other great kids' series. I admit I have never read the younger books, but they would lead on to the SVH books, which really are inappropriate...now that I look back and see them through a parent's eye. :001_smile: I also thought that the TV series was terrible, don't recommend that either.

 

I would agree with some of the other recommendations. And also you could start to read aloud some of the books your girls aren't ready for.

[coffeefreak]

Also I read those horrible books about the kids locked in the attic.

 

 

Flowers in the Attic by VC Andrews!!:lol: I wish there was a vomiting smilie. I read those AND all the Daniel Steele books in 9th grade. Seriously, were we just gluttons for punishment?:lol:

[Murmer]

I just want to say that as a twin I LOVED the Sweet Valley books although I didn't really get into the High. So it was fun to identify with the twin thing. The kid books are like Babysitter's Club Little Sister books, easy little reads for late 1st, 2nd grade reading from what I remember.

[BigMamaBird]

I used to devour the Babysitter's Club books as a girl. I also enjoyed the Animal Inn series about a girl whose father is a Vet and the Saddle Club books. None of those series were anywhere near quality fiction, but I sure loved them. I don't remember any romance or crushes in the Animal Inn or Saddle Club books, but there was "puppy love" in the Babysitters Club.

[LidiyaDawn]

Honestly, I would not get my kids started on this stuff. If they start, they will most likely want to continue. I have nothing against fluff books, but these books go way beyond fluff. They are just mind-numbing, formulaic candy that does nothing at all for the reader. I look back on the time I wasted, completely wasted, on ridiculous, brainless series books when I was young, and I wish I had that time back.

 

 

 

On the other hand, some of us really enjoyed those old series and don't regret the time we spent with our noses in the books one. little. bit. ;)

 

I don't think that everything that a person reads has to have some 'greater purpose' or whatever….

[Guest]

I loved SVT and the BSC when I was young. My dd reads BSC, but I have not let her read SVT. The main reason is because I never see them anywhere. I agree that SVH is not something I would want dd to read, though.

[abreakfromlife]

I loved SVH...remember the bikini scene, too :D I loved BSC too and own almost all of them. I pulled out BSC for my dd to read, but no way, no how is she reading anything SVH :tongue_smilie:

[Haiku]

I don't think that everything that a person reads has to have some 'greater purpose' or whatever….

 

Neither do I. But the problem, as I see it, with these series books is that it's a whole series of unedifying reading. Since there's 5 trillion and 3 of them, one could easily waste most of their reading time on them. While I have no problem with fluff, a steady diet of junk reading is not what I would aim for with my kids. I am not of the "as long as they are reading" mindset.

 

Tara

[LidiyaDawn]

I don't think that everything that a person reads has to have some 'greater purpose' or whatever….

 

Neither do I. But the problem, as I see it, with these series books is that it's a whole series of unedifying reading. Since there's 5 trillion and 3 of them, one could easily waste most of their reading time on them. While I have no problem with fluff, a steady diet of junk reading is not what I would aim for with my kids. I am not of the "as long as they are reading" mindset.

 

Tara

 

This is prolly the key bit that we split ways with then - because reading done for pleasure, in our home, involves materials chosen by the reader.

 

(Within reason, of course - I wouldn't allow a 6 year old to read my Stephen King books ;) …but you get the idea.)

[Jen+4dc]

I also read Sweet Valley as a middle schooler/teen. I'm not letting my kids read any of them. I know the SV Kids might seem innocent enough but I wouldn't get them started on that series.

If your kids are like mine, once they start, they won't want to stop with the kids series, they'll want to go on to the high school ones.

 

I don't like the content of the SVH books and can think of a ton of other books girls should read instead. I really, really don't think they are good for girls' self esteem. Instead, I think they prepare girls for following stuff like 90210 and being materialistic. They are worse than comic books because they are written as though their absurd lifestyle is attainable.

This is why my girls won't be reading them.

 

I have no problem with fluff books, but I agree with Tara that an entire series of fluff is like a diet of nothing but junk food...just too much. JMHO:D

[mamachanse]

I read all of the "fluff" books mentioned in this thread growing up and I read and mostly loved all of the great literature assigned to me in school as well. It turns out that I don't like romance novels, vampire novels, or even most mysteries. In fact, I consider myself sort of a literature snob. I wouldn't worry too much about them ruining your reader.

 

I generally assign my 8 yo one "worthy" novel a week. With all of the other work expected of him, I think his free reading should be of his choice. I'd rather have him reading, say, comics, than watching tv.

Edited April 20, 2011 by mamachanse

[ktgrok]

I read much of the series when I was a teenager. My dd will not be reading this series.

 

I remember Bruce untying Jessica's bikini top in one and salty kisses, backstabbing etc.

 

There were some good friendships but I'd rather my dd read something else. I don't think she would even consider the series.

 

The scene with Bruce was the first thing I thought of. I was TOTALLY addicted to this series as a teen!!!!

 

i'm ambivalent. The kids one is probably fine.

[ktgrok]

On the other hand, some of us really enjoyed those old series and don't regret the time we spent with our noses in the books one. little. bit. ;)

 

I don't think that everything that a person reads has to have some 'greater purpose' or whatever….

 

One of the best things about reading is the sheer escapism. I still love romance novels every so often, its the only vacation I can afford.

[junepep]

I liked the Saddle Club books a bit better that SVT or SVH if you're looking for content for young readers (I only read into the mid-30s though, so I'm not sure what happened after that).

 

I just had trouble getting into the Sweet Valley, although I did like the one about the person that goes blind from SVH -- I think that I actually bought that one and have it some where around here - probably tucked in the closet with the romances ;).

 

Ultimately, it's up to you, but I agree with the poster that said that your child won't stop with SVTwins, they'll go to SVHigh and then ultimately to the new book for adults Sweet Valley Confidential -- I've linked to the review, for you to read about the end point for the series for yourself.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/business/media/17sweet.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Sweet%20Valley&st=cse

 

It may not have been my favorite series, but I liked the girls. They were popular, but nice, even wholesome if you consider the fact that they were secular Californians -- after reading the reviews I would not use the word nice to describe them now.

[junepep]

One of the best things about reading is the sheer escapism. I still love romance novels every so often, its the only vacation I can afford.

 

:iagree: I'm so sorry I got so sidetracked by Sweet Valley that I forgot to say -- yes! Reading for pleasure is wonderful. If your child is a voracious reader there's nothing wrong with lots of fluff in their free time. My free time is often spent with fluff, there's something to be said for non-intellectual reading, especially for people who think too much as it is.

 

The only caveat to that is that I would suggest that fluff should be library reading only unless they want to spend their own money for it and I would do what my dad did and make sure that older 'fluff' ended up in my library pile as well so that your child becomes really familiar with the flow of language older books in a nice non-threatening way - anything by Lucy Maud Montgomery comes to mind, then maybe move to Burnett, Jane Eyre might work, I wasn't mature enough to 'get' the 'boring' end the first 2 times that I read it, just keep working backwards - that way they can get some 'candy' and learn at the same time.

 

If they love reading they'll eventually run out of fluff books at the library anyway :) and that's when they'll start to get really desperate and roam aimlessly though their middleschool years clutching Don Quixote and the Brothers Karamazov and building up a fantastic relationship with your local librarians who will pull the choicest books for them in anticipation of your child coming in to discuss their reading of the past week and their preferences for future books :cool:

[ktgrok]

I liked the Saddle Club books a bit better that SVT or SVH if you're looking for content for young readers (I only read into the mid-30s though, so I'm not sure what happened after that).

 

I just had trouble getting into the Sweet Valley, although I did like the one about the person that goes blind from SVH -- I think that I actually bought that one and have it some where around here - probably tucked in the closet with the romances ;).

 

Ultimately, it's up to you, but I agree with the poster that said that your child won't stop with SVTwins, they'll go to SVHigh and then ultimately to the new book for adults Sweet Valley Confidential -- I've linked to the review, for you to read about the end point for the series for yourself.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/business/media/17sweet.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Sweet%20Valley&st=cse

 

It may not have been my favorite series, but I liked the girls. They were popular, but nice, even wholesome if you consider the fact that they were secular Californians -- after reading the reviews I would not use the word nice to describe them now.

 

There are adult ones?? Tell me I'm not the only one thinking of reading them, if just for old time's sake?

[ktgrok]

Ok, I read the review, and that doesn't sound great, but I bet I still read it. Just reading the names...Regina, Enid...man I miss them, LOL. My favorite was one about the shy girl that wrote songs, and ended up getting up the nerve to submit the song in a contest, winning the love of the sexy rock band guy. Was that one about Regina?

[Ibbygirl]

I used to read Sweet Valley High and had some of the middle school ones when they were younger too. They were more innocent I guess in terms of problems and issues that they had to deal with, but Jessica is still a horrible little diva even when they are younger and always taking advantage of Elizabeth.

[hsbaby]

On the other hand, some of us really enjoyed those old series and don't regret the time we spent with our noses in the books one. little. bit. ;)

 

I don't think that everything that a person reads has to have some 'greater purpose' or whatever….

 

:iagree: I loved SVH!! I saved the entire series:) they never led to a love of romance novels for me. As I got older, my tastes changed and matured. But, ahhhhhh, such fun memories reading SVH and chatting with my friends about it!

[momtothreeboys]

There are adult ones?? Tell me I'm not the only one thinking of reading them, if just for old time's sake?

I read it for that reason and let me tell you it was a horrible book. There really isn't much details on the others just a few little things. And most of them changed drastically from the way they acted in SVH.

[Haiku]

reading done for pleasure, in our home, involves materials chosen by the reader.

 

 

Here too, but I think it also depends on what you intentionally introduce to your kids. I take my kids to the library and give them fairly free reign, but since I generally steer them toward the non-fiction and fantasy/sci-fi sections, that tends to be what they choose. They have never developed a taste for lightweight fluff series because I have never intentionally introduced them. When their great-grandmother gave them 12 Puppy Club (or something like that) books, my dd9 was very excited, but she only read 3 of them. She said they were boring. They didn't have rich characters and plot or stimulating language.

 

I'm not trying to sound snobby here. My kids read lots of things that don't qualify as high-brow literature. My son is currently obsessed with Garfield comics. But this thread is about a mom wondering about deliberately introducing the fluffiest of fluff materials to her kids, and on a classical education board, I don't think it's surprising to find people advocating against it.

 

Tara

[Rosie_0801]

At that age I was reading Enid Blyton books. There should be enough magic in there to keep the kids occupied for years. She wrote a trillion and one too.

 

Rosie

[krwsmum]

Not that anyone was asking, but I recently was on the Focus on the Family website because I was looking for some "fluff" reading for my girls. They have some age appropriate books for my 6 and 8 yo that don't have the "content" of SVH. I ordered some for the Easter baskets, we'll see what the girls think...My 6 yo loves Junie-but she's a brat and has terrible vocabulary-I am hoping the series I got for her-Meghan Rose- will not be quite as bad!

I also want them to read "real" books, but I admit I LOVED BSC and SVH, and don't blame kids for wanting to read books like that-I just want to make sure the content is appropriate when it comes to instilling Christian values in my young girls.

As a young teen I also "graduated" to VC Andrews and Danielle Steele-not AT ALL the type of stuff I want my daughters to read!!!

 

just my two cents :)

[Paige]

But this thread is about a mom wondering about deliberately introducing the fluffiest of fluff materials to her kids, and on a classical education board, I don't think it's surprising to find people advocating against it.

 

Tara

 

As that mom, I want to point out that very few people have ever read one of the books I asked about, and I think it is unfair to compare a series written for 6-7 yr olds to those written for 12 or 15yr olds. I understand that the basic characters will be the same, which is what I know will appeal to them, but I have no idea if the language will be sassy or bratty, if the storylines will be moralistic and endearing, or anything else about the actual books, and neither do most people who commented. I suspect that they don't even involve the same primary authors regardless of who it says wrote them. I don't want SV High or SV Twins books, or even Babysitters Club. I don't like Junie B., and don't even like Magic Treehouse.

 

My girls are not confident or advanced readers, and I doubt any book written on their level would be anything but fluff. I have seen the "lists" of great early readers but mostly I find them all about equally formulaic with similar vocabulary. And we want the vocab. easy at this point as too much variance would put it out of their reach. IMO, the only way they will become better readers is by reading more, and that process is a lot easier when they aren't fighting it every day.They really dislike reading but I know that they would be excited about stories of girls that they could look at and think- hey, they are just like us! They always feel different and sort of like a freak show to other kids who stare and point, so while I know there are other choices for early chapter books, there aren't many series with characters that match them so well. All I wanted was to know if anyone had experience with these actual books and if they were obnoxious like Junie B or innocuous like Nate the Great (both IMO, of course). Or, if they are written on a 1st grade level or a 4th grade level? If they are written on a 4th grade level, they are of no use to me. I'm not worried about the slippery slope argument that the Kids' series will lead to the Twins or High series. I see no reason why they will need to read any of the other books and they won't be driving themselves to the library or ordering old books off of ebay on their own.

 

And FWIW, I loved Sweet Valley High as a kid. I have no idea how old I was when I started, but I also read other romances as a teen- in addition to a whole lot of other good books! I quickly became bored with romances (not that there's anything wrong if you like them ;)) and haven't read them much since high school.

 

I got the kids one book about the twins' 7th birthday that they will get on their 7th birthday. I think they will want to read that story. I'm not upset and have appreciated the comments. I know that everyone has different ideas on what is ok and what isn't and that's what prevents me from getting bored.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Paige

[robsiew]

We personally stay away from books like this. Like others, I just see so much more out there that's better. My dd8 even loves her dad's old comic books and I'd rather she read those than these books. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in them... just stuff that isn't necessary.

 

I didn't read these as a kid, but I did go out and look at the link for the new book for adults. One paragraph stood out to me in the article.

 

“You remember how innocent and chaste they were,†said Ms. Teeman, who read the books when she was younger. “But when you make it an adult novel, naturally some of that innocence has to go away. This is a novel for adults, and we expect these characters to grow up and be adults.â€

 

It's interesting to me that to "be an adult" to this woman means you have to be nasty, destroy family bonds, drink, be promiscuous... etc. I agree we don't all stay innocent, but come on... can we hold our adults to a little higher values?

 

That last commentary was for free... nothing to do with the OP's initial post! ;)

 

Ultimately, I'd say if you really think the twins books would be fun for your girls... go for it! Personally, I think the value of reading about twins does not outweigh the brainlessness of the reading material. But, that's just my opinion! :001_smile:

[junepep]

It's interesting to me that to "be an adult" to this woman means you have to be nasty, destroy family bonds, drink, be promiscuous... etc. I agree we don't all stay innocent, but come on... can we hold our adults to a little higher values?

 

That last commentary was for free... nothing to do with the OP's initial post! ;)

 

This above is why I won't be reading it. I place a high value on myself and frankly, although I love romances, I read the sweet ones where true love and good people triumph over adversity sometimes with a twist of sci-fi or fantasy to make it even fluffier ;)

 

To the OP: I also agree that JunieB and many of the other books geared for 4th+ graders are rough. Poorly written and with protagonists that are frankly rude and crude.

 

There's nothing wrong with sweet valley twins series, the girls were ok, I think that have one (maybe two?) that I managed to save up for and buy for myself, but it wasn't my favorite series because there were other books that I liked more at that age -- but I was in a different situation from the one that you describe, for girls who are struggling to read and for whom you think that SVT will be an engaging and enjoyable challenge please do what you feel is best for them regardless of the opinion of the board :)

 

Ultimately, I think that many of the people who posted here (myself included) simply saw SV and just wanted to caution you that your children WILL probably want to read the HS books once the books about the Twins have all been read - it's more of an head's up- you're going to have to deal with this later kind of thing.

[unity]

I really was going to stay away from this when I saw where all the comments were going, but I guess I'll jump in.

 

My 3 older kids have all read SV Kids, and Babysitters Little Sister, as well as Junie B (actually, only 2 older boys read that) as well as nearly every series I could find for them. I generally operate on the principle that in order to love reading, kids need to be great at it, and the best way to get great at it is to read voraciously. At every level they hit, I get them anything and everything they want to read. I believe anything you can do to make kids love books is good.

 

The theory is that as they become outstanding readers, they will mature out of the fluff and eventually seek out difficult literature on their own. That has been my experience. All 3 of my SVK "graduates" read quality literature on their own. For example, books like Oliver Twist (the original by Dickens), Thousand Splendid Suns, adult nonfiction, Shannon Hale books, Anne of Green Gables, To Kill a Mockingbird, etc etc etc. This stuff isn't assigned by me; they just find it and read it---constantly.

 

FWIW my daughter did try to move into the Sweet Valley Twins books after SVK, but with some coaxing I convinced her to spend her time on more worthwhile books. But if I had to choose, I would in a heartbeat let her read SV Twins avidly rather than have her read only occasionally or when I assign her something.

[Guest]

I really was going to stay away from this when I saw where all the comments were going, but I guess I'll jump in.

 

My 3 older kids have all read SV Kids, and Babysitters Little Sister, as well as Junie B (actually, only 2 older boys read that) as well as nearly every series I could find for them. I generally operate on the principle that in order to love reading, kids need to be great at it, and the best way to get great at it is to read voraciously. At every level they hit, I get them anything and everything they want to read. I believe anything you can do to make kids love books is good.

 

The theory is that as they become outstanding readers, they will mature out of the fluff and eventually seek out difficult literature on their own. That has been my experience. All 3 of my SVK "graduates" read quality literature on their own. For example, books like Oliver Twist (the original by Dickens), Thousand Splendid Suns, adult nonfiction, Shannon Hale books, Anne of Green Gables, To Kill a Mockingbird, etc etc etc. This stuff isn't assigned by me; they just find it and read it---constantly.

 

FWIW my daughter did try to move into the Sweet Valley Twins books after SVK, but with some coaxing I convinced her to spend her time on more worthwhile books. But if I had to choose, I would in a heartbeat let her read SV Twins avidly rather than have her read only occasionally or when I assign her something.

 

:iagree: Well said.

 

As I said earlier, if they were readily available, I would not be opposed to DD reading SVT. I just don't want her to read SVH. Maybe when she is in high school, I won't mind.