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

[Julie Smith]

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.

 

One question about your list. In the last field is a weird picture, I'm not sure what it means. All the books are given a number between 1 and 4 inclusive which is listed in that field.

[Satori]

Is it the title heading for the last field? That would be IL - Interest Level. I thought it would be handy to determine read-aloud suitability. Here's the breakdown, but you know your child best, so please adjust as necessary:

 

1: ages 5-8 (lower elementary and K)

2: ages 9-12 (upper elementary)

3: ages 12-14 (middle school)

4: ages 14+ (young adult, high school)

 

I'm up in the air about adding Level 4, since I only have a 6 year old and feel silly listing books that I've never heard of yet. :)

 

I will update the page to make that more apparent. Maybe someday I'll add a typical Reading Level too. Again, those fields are so subjective, some children may read higher or lower than the typical reading level.

[Farrar]

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. ;)

 

I'm a fantasy dork, so yes, that's true. I think that fantasy over contemporary has been a publishing trend in mg books for the last decade plus, so there's simply more in that arena. Thanks, JK Rowling. Plus, if you look at the Newbery list or a list like Angela's of recommended elementary age books, it's pretty clear that fantasy has dominated the children's landscape for a long time. From the Wizard of Oz to E. Nesbit to The Twenty-One Balloons, fantastical stories have pretty much been the norm, especially for younger readers. Fantasy's not going away, but I think we're seeing more book like Savvy and Keeper which are a blend of contemporary and magical elements. As well, my guess is that the success of The Penderwicks may yield some stuff in the pipeline. And, as you said, historical fiction has steadily been rising over the last decade. There's plenty of that. The lists others are posting, plus just a glance at the Newbery list will tell you that.

 

I think there's a TON of great historical and contemporary, but some of it depends on the age of the kid involved. Most of it is stuff I would want to wait on to read aloud to my kids, who aren't quite 7 yo. Not because it's inappropriate, but because of thematic issues. I think they'll appreciate it more in a couple of years. The Penderwicks books are one exception. There's a lot of decent contemporary stuff for younger elementary kids that can make good read alouds - Clementine, Ivy and Bean, Gooney Bird Greene, Roxie and the Hooligans, anything by Andrew Clements. I think all of that is perfectly decent stuff and hardly "twaddle" but it doesn't quite break into "literary" in my view. But then it becomes a question of comparisons. I think a series like Clementine is extremely similar to Ramona - in theme, in sentence structure and style, in popularity and potential to endure. If you're going to toss Beverly Cleary into children's literary classics, I think you can put those in as well. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, right? So we know that Ramona has lasted for more than 40 years, so it begins to achieve the ring of "classic" whereas a more current book is more difficult to assess, which gets at Rivka's initial question.

 

But for a child about 8 or 9 and up? I think there's lots of contemporary options both literary and high quality - especially for girls. There's Jennifer Holm, Polly Horvath, Sharon Creech, Wendy Mass, and Deborah Wiles (though she's turned to historical fiction more recently). The place I see the most need is for more contemporary literary mg boy books. There are some - Chasing Vermeer and Holes (though there's that genre bending again) come to mind - but there aren't enough overall.

[Carol in Cal.]

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:

 

What a nice way to make your point! And, yes, contemporary might be a little bit of an overstatement about most of my list, but I was using it more or less in the sense of 'since 1950', because that was the guideline year in the early part of this thread.

[Hunter]

oops! Wrong thread :-0

Edited August 20, 2011 by Hunter

[Maus]

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 bo theoks (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! :)

I have to chuckle about the bolded, as my response to classical literature when I was young was, â€Why are they always about orphans or invalids?†(or both) For example, Dorothy (and Ozma) from the Wizard of Oz, Sara Crewe from â€The Little Princess,†Betsy from †Understood Betsy,†pretty much every character Charles Dickens ever wrote, the children in †The Secret Garden,†Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn.

 

I think the difficulty with contemporary literature is that too many of us as parents either don't have the time, or worse, don't have the interest, to pre-read the books before we offer them to our children. I've heard complaints from parents about how they've heard that some book or another teaches bad values (often a book I've read and loved) and my first question is always, †Have you read it?†Many of them look at me blankly like they've never heard of such a concept.

[angela in ohio]

For me, it's mostly about the vocabulary level and sentence structure. They are young, and I want them to learn from what they read.

 

There are also smaller issues: the depressing tone of modern "issues" oriented adolescent literature, the disrespect modeled in modern children's books, etc.

 

And, as Ester Maria said, I want to expose them to cultural landmarks. When someone references Alice in Wonderland, for example, I want them to actually understand the reference.

 

We don't automatically eschew modern books, nor do we automatically read anything that is older, but there are few modern books that make our list. Along with two authors a previous poster mentioned, we have also read N.D. Wilson, the Peter and the Starcatchers series, and a few others. It has become easier now that I have a 15 yo who can pre-read things for me, and I can trust her opinion about whether to continue with the author or series. I can preview twice as many books now.

 

I read several books a day as a child, but no one guided my reading. I gained little from years of reading forgettable science fiction and Sweet Valley High books. I wish desperately that someone had taken an interest in turning me on to classic literature at the time.

 

[My dc are currently listening to a new CD set they bought of all of Beethoven's symphonies while they do math. I just realized they really do prefer old books, old music, and old art. So perhaps those go together. :D]

[Rivka]

I have to chuckle about the bolded, as my response to classical literature when I was young was, â€Why are they always about orphans or invalids?†(or both) For example, Dorothy (and Ozma) from the Wizard of Oz, Sara Crewe from â€The Little Princess,†Betsy from †Understood Betsy,†pretty much every character Charles Dickens ever wrote, the children in †The Secret Garden,†Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn.

 

And child death! A deathbed scene was practically obligatory.

 

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. ;)

 

I'm not specifically looking for realistic contemporary settings, actually. Even if you look at the "children's classics" of the past, there isn't a ton of mimetic fiction: Alice in Wonderland, Mary Poppins, The Wind in the Willows, Peter Pan, and so on. But those fantasies share the sensibility of the times in which they were written, and are in conversation with the cultural assumptions of their eras. Modern fantasies are in conversation with our current culture, even if they don't reference contemporary issues directly.

 

Maybe it will help understand my position if I tell you that when my daughter was five, she said to me, "It's high time I started being like other children, and calling my bedroom the nursery!"

 

That's why we need to read more modern books. :lol:

[TracyP]

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.

 

 

YES, YES, YES! This is exactly why I turn to old books. I have asked two librarians (at different libraries) and they have been unable to find what I am looking for. The Read Aloud Handbook has been a good resource for modern books.

[twoforjoy]

I read several books a day as a child, but no one guided my reading. I gained little from years of reading forgettable science fiction and Sweet Valley High books. I wish desperately that someone had taken an interest in turning me on to classic literature at the time.

 

See, I'm not willing to say that I gained little from the "fluff" reading I did as a kid. I gained a love of reading. And I gained the ability to read really fast. ;) I probably also learned something about plot and character and the things that make up a story, given how formulaic the early books I read were, which may have made it easier for me to examine those things in more serious, complex literature.

 

My parents never guided my reading, or censored it. When I was in elementary school, I mostly read Babysitters Club/Sweet Valley Twins type books. When I was in middle school, I read Sweet Valley High, Christoper Pike, and, when I was a bit older, Stephen King, V.C. Andrews, and books like that. (I do remember reading Little Women in elementary school, and a bunch of Judy Blume and Beverly Cleary books, and reading Gone with the Wind--I have no idea why--in middle school.)

 

But by the time I was headed for high school, I was interested on my own in reading more "classic" literature. In fact, I remember that over the vacation we took the summer before I started high school, I read The Awakening, Orlando, and Ethan Frome (as well as Katherine Dunn's Geek Love, which isn't a classic, and is pretty darn horrifying for a rising ninth-grader to be reading in hindsight, but I did enjoy it and I wouldn't call it "twaddle"). I must have been on a women's lit kick. But if I hadn't already loved reading and read a lot, I really don't think I would have ever picked up a classic for fun.

 

Most of my friends who, as adults, are avid readers, read a lot of "twaddle" as kids. They read cheesy series books and comics and romance novels or pulpy sci-fi. But I find that books lead you to other books--especially as you get older and more books reference other books (if you look at the amount of classic literature referenced in today's YA literature, there's a ton of it)--and very few people will never move beyond Sweet Valley High. But, Sweet Valley High might be exactly what gets somebody into reading in the first place.

 

I just know very few adults who were raised on and continue to read a steady diet of classics. Most passionate readers I know still, as adults, read a good amount of "fluff" along with the serious stuff they read. So I'm not convinced, at all, that there isn't value simply in reading for reading's sake, regardless of the quality of the literature.

 

I know that, when I left grad school (where I studied English lit for four years), I didn't read a single book for a year. I couldn't. I was so burned out on serious literature and literary analysis. Then, for about a year after that, all I read was young adult literature, because that was pretty much all I could handle without having grad-school flashbacks and feeling like I had to be on the lookout for brilliant insights I could share. Then, eventually, I was able to read "real" literature again. But that experience did make me think that too much emphasis on "real" or "serious" literature can impede a love of reading.

[stripe]

I have to chuckle about the bolded, as my response to classical literature when I was young was, â€Why are they always about orphans or invalids?†(or both) For example, Dorothy (and Ozma) from the Wizard of Oz, Sara Crewe from â€The Little Princess,†Betsy from †Understood Betsy,†pretty much every character Charles Dickens ever wrote, the children in †The Secret Garden,†Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn..

Indeed. I read something (can't remember what or where!) that suggested this facilitated the plot element of having the children able to roam around on their own. In other words, a strong family would have gotten in the way of a good adventure. Even in ones where the family is there (such as, say, Swallows and Amazons), the kids go off on their own.

[zenjenn]

We were all a bit horrified by the "shoot first, eat later!" approach to the wildlife, though.

 

Horrified? Really? You might feel differently if your level of food security was that of a family living alone on a deserted island.

 

Anyways back to the OP, I couldn't agree more. I feel like this is "Oh, here's what classically educated children read at the time they were educated and it was so superior", without every acknowledging the fact that the context was topical to children in the context of their time. That language that is archaic for a child in 2011 was VERY accessible and normal to a child who read it at the time it was written. Without acknowledging that a family might only afford a scant few books over the course of a an education, whereas in 2011 with libraries, the internet, it, was have so much access to so much more.

 

This is why I am a big fan modernized, abridged classics - and I know this has been debated here before. The stories are timeless, but the archaic, rambling language is not - and we have access to SUCH a larger body of literature in 2011. Abridged classics familiarizes the child with these cultural & historical literary icons without having to pour over a lengthy archaic novel. This in turn leaves time to be exposed to other literature - including the quality - or just culturally relevant - literature of the 20th and 21st centuries. I do think part being well-educated is to become conversant in contemporary literature with one's peers.

[justamouse]

Indeed. I read something (can't remember what or where!) that suggested this facilitated the plot element of having the children able to roam around on their own. In other words, a strong family would have gotten in the way of a good adventure. Even in ones where the family is there (such as, say, Swallows and Amazons), the kids go off on their own.

 

 

Every coming of age book/hero's journey book has the breakaway from the normal world so that they can go on the quest that they are called to. Luke, the Hobbit, Harry..leaving so I can't think of others off the top of my head--Chains, the ordinary world is shattered so that there's no return and the hero sets out. During the journey they find out how strong they are. It's the hero's journey -Joseph Campbell talked about it.

Edited August 20, 2011 by justamouse

[nmoira]

Where are the lists of excellent-quality childrens' books published in the last 40 years? Or the last 10?

 

I have a good relationship with our children's librarian an am always attentive to book threads here. Amazon has been a great help; it must be something about the books we buy, because the recommendations are often spot on.

 

One source I haven't seen mentioned here:

 

Phoenix Award Winners

 

Books either not written in English or originally published outside the US:

 

Outside In: Children's Books in Translation

List from 2000-2007 (doc file)

Marsh Award for Children's Literature in Translation

Mildred Batchelder Award

 

(The following three are a set and are must-have IMHO)

Children's Books from Other Countries by Tomlinson)

The World Through Children's Books

Crossing Boundaries with Children's Books

 

I'd love a reliable source for recommendations for high quality modern North American children's fiction.

[nmoira]

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.

How about Raggedy Ann? :ack2:

 

IMHO, no better than the Disney Fairy books.

[stripe]

Horrified? Really? You might feel differently if your level of food security was that of a family living alone on a deserted island.

Maybe so. But maybe not. I did not personally feel that all the shooting was morally justified, isolated or no. But this is my moral system, not the family's nor necessarily anyone else's.

 

And my children (one of whom was 4 years old at the time) have not lived alone on a deserted island, so I don't think it's inappropriate that they might be taken aback by all the blazing guns, since they're not exposed to hunting wildlife or having their lives endangered. They found it horrifying more than I did. I am familiar with the tendency of certain groups of people, especially 19th century Europeans, to feel free to mow down animals with reckless abandon. It does not shock me. My young children, however, are not so jaded. So yes, they were horrified.

[stripe]

How about Raggedy Ann? :ack2:

 

IMHO, no better than the Disney Fairy books.

Pish posh! Raggedy Ann in Cookie Land remains the scariest book my kids have read, so far. All those threats of making them into noodle soup made my kids quite terrified. It even out-did the shootathons in SFR!

 

As you can see, we are gentlefolk here. :001_huh:

[nmoira]

Pish posh! Raggedy Ann in Cookie Land remains the scariest book my kids have read, so far. All those threats of making them into noodle soup made my kids quite terrified. It even out-did the shootathons in SFR!

 

As you can see, we are gentlefolk here. :001_huh:

DD the Younger was completely creeped out by Princess Langwidere (sp?) in Ozma of Oz.

 

SFR is one of the few books for which I'll likely give excerpts coupled with Cliffs Notes or the equivalent. I can't avoid it entirely as it's part of a Robinsonade unit I have planned.

Edited August 20, 2011 by nmoira

[Rivka]

How about Raggedy Ann? :ack2:

 

Seriously? From someone who claimed to be selecting on the basis of quality? Oh my gosh. See, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

[Farrar]

I'm not specifically looking for realistic contemporary settings, actually. Even if you look at the "children's classics" of the past, there isn't a ton of mimetic fiction: Alice in Wonderland, Mary Poppins, The Wind in the Willows, Peter Pan, and so on. But those fantasies share the sensibility of the times in which they were written, and are in conversation with the cultural assumptions of their eras. Modern fantasies are in conversation with our current culture, even if they don't reference contemporary issues directly.

 

 

When Suzanne Collins wrote Gregor the Overlander, her spark was thinking about how modern urban children would see a story like Alice in Wonderland, which is how she created a world filled with giant roaches and rats.

[justamouse]

Horrified? Really? You might feel differently if your level of food security was that of a family living alone on a deserted island.

 

Anyways back to the OP, I couldn't agree more. I feel like this is "Oh, here's what classically educated children read at the time they were educated and it was so superior", without every acknowledging the fact that the context was topical to children in the context of their time. That language that is archaic for a child in 2011 was VERY accessible and normal to a child who read it at the time it was written. Without acknowledging that a family might only afford a scant few books over the course of a an education, whereas in 2011 with libraries, the internet, it, was have so much access to so much more.

 

This is why I am a big fan modernized, abridged classics - and I know this has been debated here before. The stories are timeless, but the archaic, rambling language is not - and we have access to SUCH a larger body of literature in 2011. Abridged classics familiarizes the child with these cultural & historical literary icons without having to pour over a lengthy archaic novel. This in turn leaves time to be exposed to other literature - including the quality - or just culturally relevant - literature of the 20th and 21st centuries. I do think part being well-educated is to become conversant in contemporary literature with one's peers.

 

I like the archaic language, because I've seen the fruit of wading through it. My oldest daughter's language skills are far superior to her peers. She can pick up a classic and not have to muddle though the language to actually understand it. She read all of Shakespeare's works on her own, because the language didn't stop her. She's in PS part time, this year full time, and completely conversant with her peers.

[FairProspects]

I have to chuckle about the bolded, as my response to classical literature when I was young was, ”Why are they always about orphans or invalids?” (or both) For example, Dorothy (and Ozma) from the Wizard of Oz, Sara Crewe from ”The Little Princess,” Betsy from ” Understood Betsy,” pretty much every character Charles Dickens ever wrote, the children in ” The Secret Garden,” Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn.

 

 

Because when parents are around they do a pretty good job of protecting kids from all the dangerous adventures that make good stories ;). There was an article about this topic awhile back in the NYT.

Edited August 20, 2011 by FairProspects

[Bang!Zoom!]

I have a good relationship with our children's librarian an am always attentive to book threads here. Amazon has been a great help; it must be something about the books we buy, because the recommendations are often spot on.

 

One source I haven't seen mentioned here:

 

Phoenix Award Winners

 

Books either not written in English or originally published outside the US:

 

Outside In: Children's Books in Translation

List from 2000-2007 (doc file)

Marsh Award for Children's Literature in Translation

Mildred Batchelder Award

 

(The following three are a set and are must-have IMHO)

Children's Books from Other Countries by Tomlinson)

The World Through Children's Books

Crossing Boundaries with Children's Books

 

I'd love a reliable source for recommendations for high quality modern North American children's fiction.

 

Thank you for these resources. Useful. :)

 

Poking around the ALA can turn up interesting things as well. http://www.ala.org/index.cfm

 

Things like http://www.ala.org/ala/onlinelearning/servicedelivery/young.cfm

 

I think teaching children what book talks are, author presentations and group discussions consist of are also important as part of literature education. Junior Great Books programs are wonderful as well.

Edited August 20, 2011 by one*mom

[kandty]

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!

 

:iagree:

Love this thread! Hope I can find time to read all the post.

[JennyD]

I recently got a copy of 1001 Children's Books You Must Read Before You Grow Up and am finding it immensely useful. It discusses books from about the mid-nineteenth century onward and also includes a lot of books translated from other languages (which my library doesn't have, but I'm going to start using the ILL system. I had no idea that Sweden was such a gold mine for children's literature.)

 

I myself find a lot of the older children's books almost excruciatingly preachy, but it doesn't seem to bother my son in the slightest; if anything, I think he appreciates the clarity as to what is Good and what is Bad. I do agree with those who have said that it's somewhat easier to find age-appropriate material for accelerated readers among older texts, especially if you have a child (like mine) with limited tolerance for fantasy. I also find that newer texts tend to be more school-focused, which obviously doesn't resonate quite as much for a homeschooled kid (I know we've discussed this before.)

[nmoira]

I like the archaic language, because I've seen the fruit of wading through it. My oldest daughter's language skills are far superior to her peers. She can pick up a classic and not have to muddle though the language to actually understand it. She read all of Shakespeare's works on her own, because the language didn't stop her.

Exactly. :001_smile:

 

By having our children both listen to and read older works, we are opening doors and laying a foundation for them to be able to read anything. However, that doesn't mean they must wade through this or that particular work. We'll happily skip SFR but read others from the same period.

[EmilyGF]

There are hundreds of horrible older books. They just have (mainly) been forgotten.

 

In fifty years, we'll know which books from 2011 were worthwhile. :-)

 

Emily

[angela in ohio]

I like the archaic language, because I've seen the fruit of wading through it. My oldest daughter's language skills are far superior to her peers. She can pick up a classic and not have to muddle though the language to actually understand it. She read all of Shakespeare's works on her own, because the language didn't stop her. She's in PS part time, this year full time, and completely conversant with her peers.

 

That has been our experience as well.

 

My dc were doomed to a love of reading from their environment. :D Archaic language and difficult vocabulary were never going to harm that, but they have given them the courage to tackle Shakespeare (and this past year, Ancient literature) with relish.

[momto2Cs]

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.

 

I disliked a lot of the "assigned" books in school, as a child and a teen. Heck, even in college I don't like a lot of the assigned reading. Thus I tend not to assign reading to the kids, but I do make suggestions, or leave book lying around the house for them to "find." ;)

 

As to quality literature needing to be old, I don't think that's true. I think that a lot of the books that make it onto the quality lists are those that have stood the test of time, that have been around long enough to be read and enjoyed by many people. However, I think there are also newer books that are high quality - they just need to be recommended more! For example, The Tale of Despereux is a newer, but I think, quality book. At least we really enjoyed it, and I wouldn't label it twaddle.

 

I find a lot of science read alouds from various lists to not interest my kids. There are more modern books that they really love, like The Tarantula in My Purse. Not twaddle.

 

Having said all that, I do think that there is a benefit to reading older, classic literature. First, the complexity of some of the writing can be immensely beneficial to vocabulary. Second, some of the classics are cornerstones of modern cultural references, for example, Alice in Wonderland, or Shakespeare. So I do think that children should be exposed to many older titles.

 

To me, it is a balancing act. I tend to read something older to the kids, then something newer. Our book list for the year contains both modern and classic works.

[stripe]

Seriously? From someone who claimed to be selecting on the basis of quality? Oh my gosh. See, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

 

Yep, I've seen Raggedy Ann on many a list.

 

She's a great gal and all but...a classic, not really....

[Julie Smith]

How about Raggedy Ann? :ack2:

 

IMHO, no better than the Disney Fairy books.

 

I wouldn't argue about Raggedy Ann being of a classic, because it really isn't. But my BOYS loved the series. I got it as a audio recording and put it on my ipad. They feel in love and would run off with my ipad and listen. My youngest would rush into my room every 5 to 10 minutes to tell me what had just happened.

 

It was the first book I didn't listen to with them. They just go so into it, and I wasn't willing to sit and listen for hours a day.

[Julie Smith]

Maybe it will help understand my position if I tell you that when my daughter was five, she said to me, "It's high time I started being like other children, and calling my bedroom the nursery!"

 

That's why we need to read more modern books. :lol:

 

You know when it's time to add more modern works when:

 

- You son loudly proclaims in public, "Oh, Mother, I'm so gay"

or

- When you youngest son finds out something really exciting (I forgot what now) and starts yelling and shouting (for joy as it turns out). You ask your eldest what youngest is doing and he says, "He is so excited he is ejaculating all over the stairs".

[mystika1]

You know when it's time to add more modern works when:

 

- You son loudly proclaims in public, "Oh, Mother, I'm so gay"

or

- When you youngest son finds out something really exciting (I forgot what now) and starts yelling and shouting (for joy as it turns out). You ask your eldest what youngest is doing and he says, "He is so excited he is ejaculating all over the stairs".

:lol::D:lol::D:w00t:

[WishboneDawn]

You know when it's time to add more modern works when:

 

- You son loudly proclaims in public, "Oh, Mother, I'm so gay"

or

- When you youngest son finds out something really exciting (I forgot what now) and starts yelling and shouting (for joy as it turns out). You ask your eldest what youngest is doing and he says, "He is so excited he is ejaculating all over the stairs".

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

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.

 

:iagree: 100%

[Hunter]

You know when it's time to add more modern works when:

 

- You son loudly proclaims in public, "Oh, Mother, I'm so gay"

or

- When you youngest son finds out something really exciting (I forgot what now) and starts yelling and shouting (for joy as it turns out). You ask your eldest what youngest is doing and he says, "He is so excited he is ejaculating all over the stairs".

 

:lol:

 

This reminds me of the time my son and a school buddy were talking about how their daddies "did drugs". The school had listed coffee and cigarrettes as drugs.

 

Context is everything sometimes!

[Violet Crown]

Some favorite modern children's literature, off the top of my head:

 

The Daydreamer, Ian McEwan

 

The Spider's Palace, Richard Hughes

 

Rutabaga Stories, Carl Sandburg

[Rivka]

I really appreciate everyone's thoughtful replies, and especially the book list recommendations!

 

I do love older, classic books. We read a lot of them. I'm just trying to remember that my daughter lives in the 21st century, and it's great to see that others have the same feeling about classical education reading lists.

[LibraryLover]

Seriously? From someone who claimed to be selecting on the basis of quality? Oh my gosh. See, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

 

Then here is my heretic confession. The Wizard of Oz books may have redeeming political and cultural value, but they are god-awful. I find the language usage nearly as stilted as Magic Treehouse.

[nmoira]

Then here is my heretic confession. The Wizard of Oz books may have redeeming political and cultural value, but they are god-awful. I find the language usage nearly as stilted as Magic Treehouse.

 

I've always wondered if the subsequent books were ghost written/enhanced since the quality of writing of the second and third was so much better than the first.

[LibraryLover]

The cutting, divorce etc genre is alive, certainly. Yet there truly is more than that available to a young reader seeking good literature without limiting the selection to a mostly British 18th or 19th century voice or world view.

Edited August 22, 2011 by LibraryLover

[stripe]

I've always wondered if the subsequent books were ghost written/enhanced since the quality of writing of the second and third was so much better than the first.

I also found it interesting when I read that Baum had some sort of propaganda mission in mind with regard to hygiene, hence all the times Dorothy stops to wash herself!

[LibraryLover]

I'm not a fan of any of the Oz books.

[LibraryLover]

I also found it interesting when I read that Baum had some sort of propaganda mission in mind with regard to hygiene, hence all the times Dorothy stops to wash herself!

 

lol Maybe.

 

Or maybe he wanted to make the books as boring as possible.

[LibraryLover]

I really appreciate everyone's thoughtful replies, and especially the book list recommendations!

 

I do love older, classic books. We read a lot of them. I'm just trying to remember that my daughter lives in the 21st century, and it's great to see that others have the same feeling about classical education reading lists.

 

:). We had tea ( actual herb tea) when the kids were little. We didn't call it snack until my oldest started pre/k.

 

I think the WTM twaddle essay should be revisited. There is much available beyond Sweet Valley High and babysitters Club.

 

In your branching out, I recommend Cynthia Rylant, Jane Yolen, and the author of Ella Enchanted( name escapes me). My dd also enjoyed the newer books about Theodosia who has Egyptologist professor parents. I can't think that poor author, either. ;)

Edited August 22, 2011 by LibraryLover

[nmoira]

I think the WTM twaddle essay should be revisited.

*cough* Especially since Classic Starts (or the equivalent) are WTM approved.

[Laura Corin]

I really appreciate everyone's thoughtful replies, and especially the book list recommendations!

 

I do love older, classic books. We read a lot of them. I'm just trying to remember that my daughter lives in the 21st century, and it's great to see that others have the same feeling about classical education reading lists.

 

The two children's books by Salman Rushdie have gone down very well here. The first one is called Haroun and the Sea.

 

Laura

[nmoira]

The two children's books by Salman Rushdie have gone down very well here. The first one is called Haroun and the Sea

I initially hid the sequel from DD the Elder so we could make it a read aloud. Haroun and the Sea of Stories is one of my favourite children's books. Another is Summerland by Michael Chabon, also recommended by Laura IIRC.

[Violet Crown]

I also found it interesting when I read that Baum had some sort of propaganda mission in mind with regard to hygiene, hence all the times Dorothy stops to wash herself!

Dd15 once upon a time was obsessed with the Oz series, and read them all multiple times (fortunately we only had to read a half dozen of them out loud to her). Dh pointed out to me that in every single book, as far as he could tell, some sort of decapitation occurred. I started paying attention, and by gum he was right. :ack2:

[LibraryLover]

I initially hid the sequel from DD the Elder so we could make it a read aloud. Haroun and the Sea of Stories is one of my favourite children's books. Another is Summerland by Michael Chabon, also recommended by Laura IIRC.

 

We listened to Summerland on one of our long car trips. We all enjoyed it!

 

On Twadlde. One of the reasons I would like more "official" leeway is because some of the easier books help new or reluctant readers feel successful. Making reading less painful won't hurt and could turn a child like this around. Too many adults hate reading, or think they do, because they were handed books with unfamiliar language too soon. I would never hand a young struggling or reluctant reader Swallows and Amazons. Nor would I wish to hand them Magic Treehouse. (I loathe the writing 'style'. They concern history, but they still sound like Twaddle to me. Not sure why these books get a pass, when others don't.

 

Despite our best efforts, we know that many children, especially boys, are intimidated and cannot relate, on any level, to The Secret Garden, fi.

Edited August 22, 2011 by LibraryLover