Is "quality literature" necessarily old? Is old literature necessarily "quality"?

[Rivka]

I've been spending a lot of time browsing book lists and book recommendations, on this site and elsewhere. One of the things I notice is that if you follow recommendations for "great books" or "quality literature" for children, it's likely that you would wind up never giving your child a book published after 1950. Depending on how stringent the list is, you might never give your child a book published after about 1910.

 

I'm sure for some people, it's a moral choice; they don't approve of modernism (or worse yet, postmodernism) and want to inculcate 19th century values. But I also see a preference for the old-fashioned among people who say that they are solely motivated by intellectual quality.

 

I know that a lot of people think that modern books are dumbed-down, and that the classics are more demanding. But I often see recommendations of things like the Happy Hollisters series, the Boxcar Children series, the Cherry Ames nurse books, and the Betsy books, and I honestly don't see where these books are elevated in quality over modern series books. They're just older. Or I'll see someone who dismisses modern fantasy novels as "twaddle" to be strictly limited, but assigns E. Nesbit books via the Ambleside Online lists. Again, I don't know why the age of these books would make them necessarily better.

 

Does anyone else ever feel like, among homeschoolers, old "twaddle" gets packaged as literature, and newer books get dismissed as "twaddle," regardless of individual literary quality?

 

I know that, to a certain degree, classical education valorizes a bygone era. But I want my kids to read about the society and times they live in now, and not just about a quaint past of nurserymaids and carriages (or bare feet and log cabins, depending on the genre). Where are the lists of excellent-quality childrens' books published in the last 40 years? Or the last 10?

 

(That last part is a serious question. Where? Please supply me with links!)

[Mrs. Lilac]

I think this is a fascinating thread! I've wondered many of the same things! I'm interested to hear what people have to say.

[LolaT]

In answer to your question -I certainly don't know.

 

But, I tend to agree with your viewpoint. Excellent topic.

[staceyobu]

I do think we need to be quicker to adopt new literature. Perhaps it hasn't yet stood the test of time, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthy of being read.

[Ester Maria]

No, quality literature is not necessarily old. And there is what I would call "twaddle" on the major lists of classics as well, by the way - but the value of those books is often not so much in themselves, but in the fact that they, for whatever reasons, became cultural landmarks, which is largely the motivation behind including them in one's education; although, of course, there are numerous works which are there (almost) exclusively on the grounds of artistic skill. Which, at the end of the day, is the differentia specifica of literature as art from schund, even if a pleasant one.

 

That being said, young children typically DO NOT read artistic literature at all, regardless of the epoch their readings are drawn from - but books which are intentionally selected for their moral / educational / fun value, as young children lack language proficiency, abstraction of thought and the cultivation of taste to appreciate artistic literature. When literature is approached as an art of language, it is not about a what, but about a how, about the formal qualities - and the vast majority of young children simply need books for fun, learning and building language proficiency. So, while almost by definition not artistic, children's literature definitely has its place developmentally.

 

The problem is, much of the modern children's literature exposes children either cultivates bad taste (i.e. it is a kitsch of a kind, filled with cheap effects and truly bad writing), either is filled with morally problematic themes and motives - at least for some parents. So therefore the preference for older works which have stood the test of time or the parent is already familiar with them, in addition to - or even instead - of searching for the modern modern works, closer to the context of the child. This is not to say there was not much kitsch in the past - there was - but less, due to many factors (from less widespread print, to different mainstream societal values and the overall different learning expectations, etc.).

 

Personally, I find that both older and modern children's literature has its place, as the scope of reading in the early years and beginning school years is fundamentally different from the scope of reading in high school. As long as the children are exposed to cultural landmarks / artistic literature / important works in the context of their formal middle / high school education, I am fine with whatever is read aside from that.

[nukeswife]

I've often wondered the same thing. Just because it's old doesn't make it "quality".

 

I get a lot of flack because I don't give my kids a reading list, they read what they find interesting at the time. I'm just glad they are reading. That's a whole other argument though.

 

I also dislike the term "twaddle" with a passion. Maybe it's because most of what my kids read would be deemed twaddle by a majority here. I learned to love reading because I was given the freedom to pick whatever I wanted so I could read for enjoyment. Sure I had certain books that were assigned through PS, but those were usually the books I truly hated reading because I was being forced to read them on someone else's timetable.

 

Sorry kind of went off on a tangent there.

[Homemama2]

Perhaps it hasn't yet stood the test of time, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthy of being read.

 

:iagree:

 

I think, though, with some of the homeschool recommendations (like on Ambleside Online, Old Fashioned Education and other such sites) they try to find books that you can read for FREE online just to save homeschoolers money. Personally, I like a combination of both.

[Parker Martin]

I think that the newer writing is generally less rigorous. I'm sure there are exceptions, but if the writing out there for children is anything like the writing out there for adults, the exceptions are few. I do think that there are some old favorites that are not that great but are venerated with age.

 

The Read Aloud Handbook and The Parents' Guide to the Best Books for children include newer selections. (Some of them are awful, but there are good ones too.)

 

The other problem with modern children's literature is that so many authors are focused on writing message books rather than good stories. You end up with all of this young adult literature about depression and cutting and divorces and sex and drugs and whatever other "socially conscious," titillating junk people can come up with.

[Carol in Cal.]

Old literature tends to reflect a traditional mindview reliably, so if you don't have time to preread, you kind of know what you're getting.

 

Also, I think that the old literature that has survived is probably the best of the bunch. The old twaddle is harder to find.

 

I like a mix of old and new, but it can't be denied that the normalization of early teen sexual involvement in newer literature is pretty common, and I think that it's somewhat persuasive, so I do more previewing with newer literature.

[Coffeemama]

How about the more recent Newbery Award winning authors? I don't love them all, but there are some quality ones (Lowry, Cushman, Avi). One of my DDs favorites was Ella Enchanted.

 

I agree that it's important to read contemporary as well as classic.:001_smile:

[Rbsmrter]

I also dislike the term "twaddle" with a passion. Maybe it's because most of what my kids read would be deemed twaddle by a majority here. I learned to love reading because I was given the freedom to pick whatever I wanted so I could read for enjoyment. Sure I had certain books that were assigned through PS, but those were usually the books I truly hated reading because I was being forced to read them on someone else's timetable.

 

:iagree:

 

I feel the same exact way. My love of reading was cultivated by the sense of independence I felt when I was able to choose something that interested me. My kids are still young but I try to give them that same freedom as often as possible. They tend to choose a good mix of books and often surprise me with their selections. I find some of the older literature recommendations to be cumbersome, yet those often become their favorites. I like the idea of providing a good mix of books so that kids can explore their interests across a variety of genres and eras.

 

I'd love to find a booklist that included books from a variety of time periods. I've discovered quite a few modern books that I find to have the same level of quality that you'd find in older books. I think it's often easy to assume that if it was written during a certain time period, it must be good. Sometimes I think that the further it gets from modern American English the more it's lauded as great literature. Of course the prose 100 years ago are beautiful and worthy of being studied, but I also think that an exposure to modern day vocabulary is just as important (and can be just as beautiful). Of course that's my humble opinion, and one that probably isn't shared by a lot of the classical community :001_smile:

[Critterfixer]

Also, I think that the old literature that has survived is probably the best of the bunch. The old twaddle is harder to find.

 

 

I don't know about that. In the age of instant online gratification you can dig up a lot of ancient twaddle in a few minutes.

There is a lot of older stories that really talk down to children. Many use about three times the words needed to convey a point.

On the other hand I can think of plenty of modern stories for children that do the same things.

[Hunter]

I absolutely do NOT believe older is better!!!! Some of the older stuff is so full of discrimination towards minorities, women and the disabled that it makes me physically ill.

 

Also longer, flowery sentences are not any better than shorter sentences; they are just different.

 

I do not believe people were more moral 100, 200 or 300 years ago. They just were immoral in different ways. I wouldn't even say they were more subtle about it. They were pretty blatant and entitled about their sins.

 

Nostalgia has it's place in creating culture. Humans are grounded by cycles and the familiar. There is certainly a lot of good reasons to read old books. They are NOT "better" though!

[Harriet Vane]

I've been spending a lot of time browsing book lists and book recommendations, on this site and elsewhere. One of the things I notice is that if you follow recommendations for "great books" or "quality literature" for children, it's likely that you would wind up never giving your child a book published after 1950. Depending on how stringent the list is, you might never give your child a book published after about 1910.

 

I'm sure for some people, it's a moral choice; they don't approve of modernism (or worse yet, postmodernism) and want to inculcate 19th century values. But I also see a preference for the old-fashioned among people who say that they are solely motivated by intellectual quality.

 

I know that a lot of people think that modern books are dumbed-down, and that the classics are more demanding. But I often see recommendations of things like the Happy Hollisters series, the Boxcar Children series, the Cherry Ames nurse books, and the Betsy books, and I honestly don't see where these books are elevated in quality over modern series books. They're just older. Or I'll see someone who dismisses modern fantasy novels as "twaddle" to be strictly limited, but assigns E. Nesbit books via the Ambleside Online lists. Again, I don't know why the age of these books would make them necessarily better.

 

Does anyone else ever feel like, among homeschoolers, old "twaddle" gets packaged as literature, and newer books get dismissed as "twaddle," regardless of individual literary quality?

 

I know that, to a certain degree, classical education valorizes a bygone era. But I want my kids to read about the society and times they live in now, and not just about a quaint past of nurserymaids and carriages (or bare feet and log cabins, depending on the genre). Where are the lists of excellent-quality childrens' books published in the last 40 years? Or the last 10?

 

(That last part is a serious question. Where? Please supply me with links!)

 

I recommend the Boxcar Children or Cherry Ames for young readers mostly because the characters do not speak rudely and the storylines are kinder and gentler. So much of the modern stuff available is so negative.

 

That said, of course there is good literature that is modern, and bad literature that is older. There are some things that I recommend that are truly well written. Others I recommend because, while twaddle, they are harmless.

[Lori D.]

JMO, but a true "Classic" or Quality story can be thousands of years old, or have been printed yesterday -- it's just easier to determine whether the book really IS Quality after it's been around for awhile to "test its mettle". (lol)

 

 

Signs I look for in a work to count it as "Literature" or a "quality book":

- it is creative and original (not derivative and repetitive)

- it appropriately uses interesting and varied vocabulary

- clever use of language

- the writing uses variety in sentence structure

- it builds complex characters (not flat, predictable, or stereotypical)

- it addresses a "universal theme" -- wrestles in some way with the "big questions of life" (example: Charlotte's Web = friendship; self-sacrifice; handling loss/death)

- it has internal consistency and "feels real" (not contrived, "wishful thinking" or unrealistic or out-of-character in choices/actions)

- it "transcends time" -- in other words, the book has appeal and "speaks to" not only to the time/culture in which it was written, but also to people 10 years, 100 years, even 1000 years distant (so, that could be a book written 2 years ago, but this sign of a classic won't reveal that until many years future)

 

 

Quality books are "main meals", while "fluff" books, whether they were written in the 1800s or last year (ex: Happy Hollisters or the Babysitter Club books) are "snack food" -- it's fine (and FUN!) to have snacks every so often, but they are not what will nourish the brain and the soul in the way Classic Literature does. (Perhaps we need a website in which many people can post their careful scrutinies of books written in the past 50 years or so to help us find more "gems"...)

 

Happy hunting -- and reading! Warmest regards, Lori D.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Lori D.

[WishboneDawn]

I think that the newer writing is generally less rigorous.

 

I'm really not sure about it. The thing with older literature is that most of what we're familiar with is the stuff that lasted. The bad romance or adventure pocket novels simply didn't and their authors are, by and large, forgotten.

 

And frankly, even some of the classic stuff really isn't that rigorous. The Portrait of a Lady was a disappointment and I wasn't sure why until I read that it was published as a serial and James was rather rushed near the end to get it the last parts published. No wonder it felt like the novel tripped and fell down at a certain point. If he'd been more rigorous there would have been no issue.

[stripe]

I read a book recently by Alison Lurie entitled Don't Tell the Grown-Ups: The Subversive Power of Children's Literature, and she specifically mentioned Nesbit as being "subversive" because she broke out of the mold of Victorian literary fairy tales where kindly adults deliver a gently disguised morally improving lesson, and also because she was the irst to write at length for children as intellectual equals and in their own language.

 

What Lurie means by a subversive book is that it expresses ideas and emotions not generally approved of or recognized at the time, makes fun of honored figures or beliefs, and views social pretenses with clear eyed directness (a la the boy in the Emperor Who Has No Clothes).

 

I am with Hunter on the issue of flowery language coupled with a repulsive (or exclusionary) message. I find those morally problematic, frankly. (And I still can't get myself to read A Cricket in Times Square.)

 

While I agree that young adult books as a genre are generally about young adult angst, that does not encapsulate the entirety of modern children's literature. Many "children's" books are longer and more literary in style than YA books (which typically are about 150 pgs long), such as Harry Potter, Redwall, and the Nancy Farmer's books.

[WishboneDawn]

I've often wondered the same thing. Just because it's old doesn't make it "quality".

 

I get a lot of flack because I don't give my kids a reading list, they read what they find interesting at the time. I'm just glad they are reading. That's a whole other argument though.

 

I also dislike the term "twaddle" with a passion. Maybe it's because most of what my kids read would be deemed twaddle by a majority here. I learned to love reading because I was given the freedom to pick whatever I wanted so I could read for enjoyment. Sure I had certain books that were assigned through PS, but those were usually the books I truly hated reading because I was being forced to read them on someone else's timetable.

 

Sorry kind of went off on a tangent there.

 

Me too. I read lots and lots of twaddle as a kid. I also enthusiastically read lots of better quality stuff. Both fed my imagination and both taught me about writing.

 

I often think about Sci-fi and detective novels when people go on about twaddle. In it's early days it was absolutely full of "twaddle". Cheap novels churned out at breakneck speed. But those novels fueled the imagination and passion of writers like Isaac Asimov and created the genre that masterful writers like Ed McBain (if you haven't read him, you must) perfected.

 

"Twaddle" can feed the soul too.

[WishboneDawn]

I am with Hunter on the issue of flowery language coupled with a repulsive (or exclusionary) message. I find those morally problematic, frankly. (And I still can't get myself to read A Cricket in Times Square.).

 

Swiss Family Robinson here. What an absolute bore. I'd much read my kids Pokemon novels then try to slog through that again. Blech.

[stripe]

"Twaddle" can feed the soul too.

And as much as I want to love CM, I find her criteria to be a bit harsh. A child is supposed to be doing/reading only what is appropriate for an adult? I frankly reject that. I view childhood as a special stage. I like to see goofy, happy kids. Maybe adults need to become more childlike. Maybe then we'd have fewer adult problems like war. Or at least we could settle our problems by wrestling.

[Parker Martin]

<i>The thing with older literature is that most of what we're familiar with is the stuff that lasted. The bad romance or adventure pocket novels simply didn't and their authors are, by and large, forgotten. </i>

 

I agree with that. But taken as a whole if you look at what an average reader one hundred years ago would have been expected to be able read compared to today, there is a huge difference in rigor. Take it back three hundred years and something your average reader could read then is considered advanced and difficult by today's standards.

[stripe]

Swiss Family Robinson here. What an absolute bore. I'd much read my kids Pokemon novels then try to slog through that again. Blech.

Oh no. I own a copy of that.

 

We read an abridged version after my son found an excerpt in a Childcraft volume and was sort of captivated. We were all a bit horrified by the "shoot first, eat later!" approach to the wildlife, though. (It was a really bad abridged version, too, with typos. Shudder.)

 

It does seem a bit lengthy. Sigh.

[Julie Smith]

I am with Hunter on the issue of flowery language coupled with a repulsive (or exclusionary) message. I find those morally problematic, frankly. (And I still can't get myself to read A Cricket in Times Square.)

 

Um, what do you think is 'wrong' with A Cricket in Times Square. I just got it out of the library.

 

(Mind you what you think makes it unreadable might also make it a perfect fit for my son. He prefers books were everyone behaves. No one gets in trouble. Everyone gets along wonderfully the whole time... We are currently reading a book in "The Little House" series. My son says he much prefers hearing about Mary since she knows how to behave properly. )

[stripe]

Um, what do you think is 'wrong' with A Cricket in Times Square. I just got it out of the library.

I cannot read a book with a fake Chinese accent, especially since I've never met a Chinese person who talks like what to me seems like a fake Japanese accent. ("You wanna lice with that?")

 

Tara told me to read without the accent but...I just can't!

[PenKase]

I learned to love reading because I was given the freedom to pick whatever I wanted so I could read for enjoyment.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Matter of fact, as a young adolescent, I vividly remember sneaking my mother's Harlequin's and reading them well into the odd hours of the night. I too was given the freedom to read what I enjoyed. I even loved my high school required book list.

 

Some of the older stuff is so full of discrimination towards minorities, women and the disabled that it makes me physically ill.

Si, si, si......totally agree here too.

 

FWIW, one of my personal favorites was Tale of Despereaux. At the time, I remember constantly reminding my dd not to read ahead because I wanted to know what was happening next. I even cried at some parts. I'm a Wuss, I know, but I love, love, love that book. Had I stuck with just the "classics" we'd never been drawn to it and consider it one of our absolute favorites.

Edited August 19, 2011 by PenKase

[WishboneDawn]

 

I agree with that. But taken as a whole if you look at what an average reader one hundred years ago would have been expected to be able read compared to today, there is a huge difference in rigor. Take it back three hundred years and something your average reader could read then is considered advanced and difficult by today's standards.

 

Take it back 300 years and most couldn't read. :) No doubt the average reader could read what we consider advanced and difficult but was that group of people really a bigger percentage of the population then those who might read the more "advanced" and "difficult" books today? I've sort of pulled that question out of my ear but now that I've thought it I'm wondering about that.

[WishboneDawn]

Oh no. I own a copy of that.

 

We read an abridged version after my son found an excerpt in a Childcraft volume and was sort of captivated. We were all a bit horrified by the "shoot first, eat later!" approach to the wildlife, though. (It was a really bad abridged version, too, with typos. Shudder.)

 

It does seem a bit lengthy. Sigh.

 

:D I think we only made it a couple of chapters in. It was the father who done killed it for us. Rather preachy chap.

[Farrar]

Well, I think you know I agree with you, Rivka.

 

I don't have a problem with "twaddle" or "fluff" or whatever you call it. Old or new, if a book calls to a child, I feel they should be able to read it. Like others, I don't necessarily buy it or suggest it if I think it's not very good and I will not read it aloud. However, I encourage my kids to look for things to read themselves at the library.

 

Many of the older books are, frankly, just as much twaddle as newer books. I think older books for children do often have more varied sentence structure and high levels of vocabulary. However, that's not all older books by a long shot. Plus, many older books for children are seriously lacking in plot or talk down to children.

 

There are lots of wonderful, literary books for children written in the last couple of decades. Writers like Kate DiCamillo, Cornelia Funke, Sharon Creech, Deborah Wiles, Cynthia Rylant, Grace Lin... I could go on for pages here... these are all writers publishing high quality literary works for children in the last ten years. There's plenty of poor quality books too, but it drives me crazy the way that classical homeschoolers are dismissive of newer books. The go to books always seem to be the oldest books. People come here and bemoan that their young children didn't enjoy Swiss Family Robinson or Roger Lancelyn Green and say things that seem to indicate that they don't think reading new books is an option.

 

The list of books Angela/Satori is making is sortable by year (and other things). I like that it has a nice spread of eras to it.

 

If one was to make a list focused on the last 10-20 years, I think one could easily get many more books together to make it even longer.

[justamouse]

Does anyone else ever feel like, among homeschoolers, old "twaddle" gets packaged as literature, and newer books get dismissed as "twaddle," regardless of individual literary quality?

 

 

Absolutely. Absolutely, absolutely. What I actually do it hit my library catalog FIRST, to see what's out there in the subject.

 

Houston school list

 

Here's more

 

Young Adult Library Association lists

 

Newberry Winners

 

I'm trying to find the list my daughter's school gave us-it was an ENORMOUS website with lists of books that could be chosen, per grade/age/subject.

Edited August 19, 2011 by justamouse

[stripe]

:D I think we only made it a couple of chapters in. It was the father who done killed it for us. Rather preachy chap.

I should specify, he was captivated by the excerpt. We made it through the book, but maybe all the speeches got the ax? Anyway I was also annoyed with myself because I kept wondering where they were from. (I know, the answer was right in front of me the whole time.)

 

I did like the homemade rubber boots, though.

[oraetstudia]

There is absolutely old twaddle. Doesn't mean my children and I don't enjoy it. We're very fond of The Famous Five, Nancy Drew, and the Hardy Boys, but those aren't great literature.

 

There is also wonderful literature being written right now and many great new books out there. Two of my favorite current series are The Mysterious Benedict Society and The Penderwicks and there are plenty of other fairly recent books that I think are great.

 

Twaddle and good books are often in the eye of the beholder or like the line the Supreme Court Justice used about p0rn0graphy, "I know it when I see it."

 

Personally I disagree with the strict CM-er or even the great SWB that one should focus exclusively on the non-twaddle and never allow the other stuff. I hate to make it all forbidden fruit, plus I think it partly depends upon the child. I raise mine surrounded by good books and great books, but that doesn't mean that they don't want a little fluff now and again.

[Laura Corin]

For me, older books provide richer vocabularies and more complex sentence patterns. The quality of imagination may be no greater or less than in modern books, but they provide a better lead-in to older adult literature, including Shakespeare.

 

Laura

[justamouse]

For me, older books provide richer vocabularies and more complex sentence patterns. The quality of imagination may be no greater or less than in modern books, but they provide a better lead-in to older adult literature, including Shakespeare.

 

Laura

 

I have found that to be true, too. I take care of that by making our read alouds from, say, The Wonder Clock.

[Lori D.]

I just wanted to expand on this a little, even though the general trend in the thread is not necessarily exploring modern works, but discussing the value of/lack of value of old works. ;)

 

There are a lot of modern, well-written works out there for children up through young adults, but they mostly seem to be poetry collections, picture books, or fantasy/sci-fi genres -- which is not the modern-day setting you (original poster) were also requesting. I believe what you are looking for is called "contemporary realistic" fiction, and there is quite a lot of it out there. It runs the full spectrum, just like any other genre, of poorly written, through adequately written, to a few well-written works.

 

My problem with much of these works is that they SO reflect the culture we live in, that I find it tiresome and depressing to constantly read about children from divorced or broken homes; foster care or runaways; dealing with drugs or peer pressure; adolescent sexuality; etc. Not saying we should shelter our kids and shouldn't use fiction as a means for prompting meaningful conversation and use some of these works to help us introduce difficult subjects and how to deal with these issues, or help others who are hurting and walking through these situations, but... goodness! Even recently published (past 10-15 years) fantasy and sci-fi books (traditionally more "escapist" fiction) for children and young adults is reflecting the very dark worldview of our current culture.

 

Im just throwing these comments out as a "seed" for hearing conversation on a very interesting topic you brought up here in starting this thread! :) So please, people, jump in with your thoughts on why the apparent scarcity of quality contemporary fiction...

 

 

And, because you (OP) asked for a list, here you go. I would not call these all "quality" or well-written or inspirational, but they are set in contemporary times and somewhat reflect modern culture. Hope this helps! Warmest regards, Lori D.

 

Newberry Winners and Honor Books (mix of contemporary realistic and historical fiction works over the years)

 

Books by:

- Judy Blume

- Andrew Clements

- E.L. Konigsberg

- Sharon Creech

- Patricia Reilly Giff

- Joan Bauer

- Avi

 

 

SONLIGHT READERS

The grade level is for READERS -- you can drop 2 grade levels to use as read-alouds. These are all books that are set in within the past 50 years (contemporary setting, back to 1980s)

 

level: gr. 4+

- The Year of Miss Agnes (and others by this author) -- set in rural Alaska

 

level: gr. 5+

- From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler

- My Side of the Mountain

- Pictures of Hollis Woods

- The Incredible Journey -- animals

- Water Sky -- set in Alaskan native culture

- Journey to Jo'burg -- set in contemporary South African culture

- Red Sand, Blue Sky -- set in contemporary Australian culture

 

level: gr. 6+

- Banner in the Sky

- The View from Saturday

- The Day They Came to Arrest the Book

- Dear Mr. Henshaw

- The Great Gilly Hopkins

- Crazy Lady

- The Breadwinner -- set in 1990s Afghanistan

 

level: gr. 7+

- Maniac Magee

- The Contender

- Moves Make the Man

- What Hearts

- Julie of the Wolves -- set in rural Alaska

- Walk Two Moons -- contemporary native American girl; set in rural northern U.S.

 

level: gr. 9+

- The Wave

- Hope Was Here

- Children of the River -- set in late 20th century Cambodia

 

 

Contemporary Realistic Fiction: Chapter Books list:

- Frindle

- How to Eat Fried Worms

- The School Story

- Freckle Juice
Tales of the Fourth Grade Nothing

- Outcasts of 19 Schuyler Place

- Silent to the Bone

- Rules of the Road

- The Tulip Touch

- Summer of the Swans

- 
The Stories Julian Tells


- Dear Mr. Henshaw

-The Landry News

- 
My Brother Stevie

- Amber Brown is Not a Crayon

- 
A Family Project by Sarah Ellis

- Harriet the Spy


- Cousins

- 
Anastasia at This Address

- Arthur for the Very First Time

- 
Skinnybones

- 
Bridge to Terebithia

- The Best School Year Ever

- 
Missing May

- There's a Boy in the Girl's Bathroom

- 
The Flunking of Joshua T. Bates


- The Trouble with Tuck

Edited August 19, 2011 by Lori D.

[mrsriley81]

Thank you for the list, Lori B!

 

I agree, it is important to read good quality contemporary books as well as the old great books. There is absolutely "twaddle" in both categories, and it is up to us as parents to filter out what is important to read, and what isn't. Now, I also think there is a time and place to read a certain amount of "twaddle". I know that I, myself, enjoy reading lighter fare at times in addition to the more cerebral books.

For those of us with children who are reading above grade level, it is hard to find modern books that are thematically appropriate while still being textually interesting. Or, in the vernacular of an eight year old, "I don't want to read baby books". That's not to say they aren't out there, but they can be hard to find.

 

While it is hard to say that older children's books are "more literary" or "better" than modern ones, it certainly seems generally true that the writing of these older books which have stood the test of time is at a more challenging level for a given age level.

 

I believe that computerized leveling is to blame. Every modern editor can measure the "lexile" score of a book, and I believe that editors have a target lexile score in mind before they publish a children's book. Surely, they must often edit it down to a lower lexile score in order to reach a greater audience.

[Farrar]

I think the best bet, by the way, for finding quality books from recent years is the various ALA award winners, in particular the Newbery. Not all of the winners and honor books are perfect as read alouds, but many of them - Rules, Savvy, The Tale of Despereaux, Where the Mountain Meets the Moon, etc. are wonderful choices for elementary level read alouds.

[justamouse]

For those of us with children who are reading above grade level, it is hard to find modern books that are thematically appropriate while still being textually interesting. Or, in the vernacular of an eight year old, "I don't want to read baby books". That's not to say they aren't out there, but they can be hard to find.

 

 

Absolutely true. SO, so true. My children reading ability was FAR higher than what subject matter I was willing to let them read-and I'm pretty liberal with that stuff.

 

There's also excellent historical fiction put out, too.

Edited August 20, 2011 by justamouse

[silliness7]

I'm very interested to read the replies and would love to know if there is a list of good books less than 10 years old.

 

But your question reminded me of an observation I had on children's books. I often notice that the books that I just read for fun as a kid are books that are now elevated to literary school assignment status.

 

I wonder what books my kids read today, just for fun, that my grandkids will have on their school reading lists. Harry Potter maybe? I wonder what else.

 

 

ETA: Lori, awesome list!! Thanks.

Edited August 20, 2011 by silliness7

[Stacie in UT]

There is good and bad in both new and old literature. You have to check it out and decide for yourself what is worthwhile for your children to read.

 

That said, I tend to like the lists in the Well Trained Mind, the Well Educated Mind, Sonlight, and the Charlotte Mason books lists available on line. Have to say, also, that the lists my local library puts together are pretty good. Find out if your library has a lists of age appropriate recommended reading.

[twoforjoy]

I'll admit to having the opposite bias: I don't often read or have DS read anything more than 40 years old, and it's VERY rare for me to read anything published before the 20th century. I took a seminar on the eighteenth century novel in grad school, and I think that just about did me in on older literature. ;) (And, FWIW, we read mostly classics but a few popular novels from that time period. The sentences were longer, and some of the language archaic, but some of it sure was trashy.)

 

Compared to what I read as a kid, I think DS reads pretty good stuff. And, he reads mainly contemporary novels. I mostly read Babysitter's Club and Sweet Valley Twins books when I was in grade school. (And, while they certainly weren't high-quality literature--I'd say they were more trash than "twaddle"--I don't believe they did me any harm. I ended up being a very avid reader.) He reads some of the same stuff I did, like Beverly Cleary, but mostly newer, fantasty-ish stuff.

 

DS just started a new book, Peter Nimble and His Fantastic Eyes, that I read some excellent reviews of. I skimmed it and it looks quite good.

[twoforjoy]

For those of us with children who are reading above grade level, it is hard to find modern books that are thematically appropriate while still being textually interesting. Or, in the vernacular of an eight year old, "I don't want to read baby books". That's not to say they aren't out there, but they can be hard to find.

 

I think it depends if you are looking for realistic fiction or fantasy/adventure stuff. I agree it's hard to find realistic fiction for advanced elementary-aged readers. My son enjoys Beverly Cleary, but other than her, I can't think of anybody writing about kids his age that he reads. Maybe some Roald Dahl books, but I'd classify those more with fantasy. Most of the realistic books with protagonists his age he'd consider too easy, though, and realistic books written at his reading level generally have more mature themes than he could appreciate or I'd think appropriate.

 

But if you look more at fantasy/adventure stuff, I think there's generally more to pick from.

[LucyStoner]

I absolutely believe that there is much quality literature being written now for kids and adults. I can not imagine that every older book is excellent either. I do not yearn for 19th century values either, I personally think that people can have perfectly great values in the present decade. In my opinion, I would be choking my son's education if I ignored all of the great contemporary books. My son does read far above grade level so I do get the challenge of staying age appropriate while still being appropriate for his higher reading level. It is extra work, but they are out there. And for what is is worth, some of the older children's classics are not age appropriate for the young advanced reader.

Edited August 20, 2011 by kijipt

[justamouse]

Esperanza Rising-depression

Crispin 1300s

A Gathering of Days 1830

The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle 1832 (Avi)

A Single Shard 12 Centry China

Bud, Not Buddy 1930

Elijah of Bruxton 1849

Fever 1793

Chains 1776

Forge 1777-8

Blood on the River 1607

Break with Charity (withc trials)

The Ransom of Mercy Carter 1704

THe Evolution of Calpurnia Tate 1899

Encounter at Easton 1768

The Mostly true Adventures of Homer P Figg 1776

When my Name was Keoko WWII

I am Regina 1755

Bound for Oregon 1850

THe Secret of Sarah Revere (Revolution)

Cast Two Shadows 1780

The Fifth of March (Boston Massacre)

[LucyStoner]

It is also important to remember that time is on the side of losing the meh, mediocre and just plain awful books published long ago. Not great books, like not great music, go out of print. Modern books may look like there is more twaddle by comparison but our twaddle just has not been lost to history yet.:tongue_smilie:

[Lori D.]

I think the best bet, by the way, for finding quality books from recent years is the various ALA award winners, in particular the Newbery. Not all of the winners and honor books are perfect as read alouds, but many of them - Rules, Savvy, The Tale of Despereaux, Where the Mountain Meets the Moon, etc. are wonderful choices for elementary level read alouds.

 

 

Definitely agree -- lots of wonderfully well-written works in the past decade. BUT, where I had trouble was ALSO finding books that were in contemporary/realistic or modern-day culture settings -- which was what the original poster was asking about. There are lots of good contemporary books -- but large numbers are either historical fiction or fantasy settings. And, not in any way trying to pick on you here, Farra, but 3 of those 4 titles you listed above involve magic or have a fantasy setting. ;)

 

In addition, many of the Newberry Winners/Honor Books of the past decade (and, indeed, throughout Newberry's history) are historical fiction. So, maybe the conclusion to draw is that if we want contemporary works, we may have to settle for average as well as well-written works. Or expand the genres we're willing to read to include non-contemporary/non-realistic settings. Whereas if we ONLY want the best quality books, then we'll have more to choose from if we go with older books -- hundreds of thousands of books have passed through those "sorting sieves", and we have more well-written books from the past, because it's the accumulation of "the best of the best" from many years. Whereas, hundreds of new books are published each year, but only a few will really be "best of the best", so when we look at contemporary books, the pile is much smaller, because we've limited the pile we're willing to look at... ;)

 

Enjoying this conversation, ladies! :) Warmest regards, Lori

[Carol in Cal.]

One contemporary author that uses some modern settings is Zilpha Keatley Snyder. For the most part I like her books. Modern-ish ones that I recommend are "The Egypt Game," "The Gypsy Game," and "Black and Blue Magic." One from the depression era that is very well-written is "Red Velvet Room." She writes some fantasy also.

 

Another sometimes good contemporary writer is E.L. Konigsberg, although I really only like a couple of her books--"From the Mixed Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler" and "Jennifer, Hecate, Macbeth, William McKinley, and Me, Elizabeth".

[mo2]

:bigear: Just marking this so I remember to come back and finish reading. Great topic.

[Lori D.]

One contemporary author that uses some modern settings is Zilpha Keatley Snyder. For the most part I like her books. Modern-ish ones that I recommend are "The Egypt Game," "The Gypsy Game," and "Black and Blue Magic." One from the depression era that is very well-written is "Red Velvet Room." She writes some fantasy also.

 

Another sometimes good contemporary writer is E.L. Konigsberg, although I really only like a couple of her books--"From the Mixed Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler" and "Jennifer, Hecate, Macbeth, William McKinley, and Me, Elizabeth".

 

 

I love this you and this post! :001_wub: You made me feel so young, calling these works "contemporary" -- I read many of those in my childhood, which is now some 3 decades (and a bit more) ago! :tongue_smilie:

[Satori]

It's already been mentioned, but if anyone sees anything they consider twaddle or not high quality on this children's literature list, please let me know. I haven't read everything on the list, I've just been adding what I've researched to be people's favorites. I am still welcoming suggestions and advice. :)

 

Plenty of contemporary titles made the list.