What would it be like to raise children on only the most magnificent literature?

[yellowperch]

This was my idle thought of the day (4 soccer practice on four fields in four parts of town today. I'm still feeling car sick...but I've had lots of time to think).

 

We are all compulsive readers here, and our tastes run from junk to great works. Sometimes, however, it seems the junk is more enjoyable than the magnificent works of literature I'd prefer to see my kids reading.

 

To put it another way: the Magic Treehouse series was a great bridge from readers to chapter books for my kindergarten and first graders. They have all been thrilled to read a chapter book in a day. They'd all reach for the next one without the blink of an eye. So it was a great bridge, but to where? My dd, for example, read the 25-plus volume Warrior series in about six weeks, but she hasn't been able to get into the Secret Garden or the Little Princess or Wrinkle in Time or Caddie Woodlawn. She's now reading a series about owls. She'll sometimes pick up something a little richer, and she'll readily do her assigned reading, but given half a chance she rushes into the arms of her series.

 

So I'm wondering what it would be like if they had been raised on the best literature, however you'd define it.

 

I really do think reading is such a deeply personal experience, and it largely belongs to the person doing it. I'm not sure how much I want to interfere with my children's reading beyond providing them with things that will delight and/or enlighten them and requiring them to read no small amount of good literature as part of their academic training. Probably not much. But still, I wonder what would have happened if I had read to them only the very best books, and then only stocked the shelves here with the best, from Aesop to Wind in the Willows.

 

Your thoughts?

[Farrar]

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. I have have opinions about what constitutes quality, but I have no interest in censoring my kids' reading according to my personal taste, or really much at all beyond really mature topics they're not ready for (and eventually, I won't be censoring that either).

 

Research says that allowing children to choose their books, not giving children books adults think are good, is what turns them into lifelong readers and raises their test scores.

 

So... I personally find that to be an impossible thing to even achieve without withholding books and making lots of rules disallowing my children to read books. The potential struggles I could see ensuing from that and the association of forbidden books strikes me as something I can't imagine personally wanting. It's hard for me to consider the consequences beyond that.

[go_go_gadget]

That's kind of what we're doing, though I don't know how long it'll last. We started reading children's novels to the kids when my oldest was three, partly because we all liked them but also to establish a taste for really great literature. As soon as my son built up stamina using Little Bear and Frog & Toad, I gave him Trumpet of the Swan and The Phantom Tollbooth. He listens to classics well above his reading level, so he's accustomed to the way good literature "feels", if that makes sense. I've never told him things like Magic Tree House exist, and thus far he's been perfectly content to let me choose his books from the library. Again, I don't know how long any of this will last, and I'm not inclined to make reading into a battleground (reading for pleasure, anyway; assigned reading is different). I remember devouring the Babysitters' Club series as a third-fifth grader and my mother trying to make me read one other book for every BC book I read, and it just made me stop reading until she gave up (there's a strong stubborn streak at work here). So while I've done everything I can to make great books the default, I can't make any predictions about how well it'll work ultimately.

[Stellalarella]

I had a hoity toity attitude about Magic Tree House, Geronimo Stilton and Captain Underpants until I read Jim Trelease's Book, The Read Aloud Handbook.

Here is a general paraphrase of his philosophy: Yep, giving them the great books is what we want and it's what we are aiming them for, but nothing increases their proficiency in reading like.......easy peasy junk food books.

Jim's advice made me stop and think.

And after I thought about it, I realized he was right.

Dear Daughter age 10 is upstairs, right this minute, plowing through a stupid Geronimo Stilton book. And Monday, I will assign her literature.

[Critterfixer]

Well, I don't know. On one hand, I am delighted to see children reading books at all instead of watching television or playing video games, but I understand the OP's thought.

Putting it another way, one might be thrilled that children are getting exercise playing the Wii, but it that the same as climbing trees, making mud pies and generally galloping wildly around the yard pretending to be horses, dogs, or Celtic warriors? Sometimes I feel the same way about literature created to appeal to the modern child the way I feel about cereal and other processed food in bright attractive packages. Is it wholesome? Probably. Will it hurt them to eat it? No, not usually. Is it real food? Yess. Will they eat it? Yep.

 

As much as I might delight in having the children crave a farm-fresh, organically fed chicken egg laid by one of our hens for breakfast, along with a slice of home-made whole-grain bread toasted with a thick dressing of local honey I also understand that you have to develop a taste for things that are not only good for you, but special and worth savoring. Sometimes that comes with age and experience. And with trying a little bit of the good things when the old things are stale and too familiar. (I don't think forcing the issue helps AT ALL. Some things are good for you and have to be eaten or read, but that approach does very little to make the child LOVE the food, or the book.)

 

The different flavor of classics requires a cultivated palate for enjoyment.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Critterfixer

[yellowperch]

I think what I am imagining sound a lot more draconian than I intended.

 

I'll try for an analogy. Say my house is stocked with a good variety of reasonably healthy food and lots of tasty fun junk food too. I'm noticing that my kids are eating a lot more of the junk food than I would like. I know that once they developed more sophisticated palates they would enjoy a wider variety, but I can't seem to get them to put down the potato chips and soda to try they most amazing and delightful mango. So I'm wondering what it would be like if from birth I had given them only mangos and homemade Greek yogurt and olives and blueberries and fresh from the garden snow peas. The house would be stocked with plenty of variety and all of it would be theirs to choose among but none of it would be Doritos (aka Captain Underpants or Junie B. Jones).

 

I'm just wondering what it would be like, and what the kids would be like. I'm not talking about mind control, just stocking the kitchen with fruit and milk.

 

And anyway, I could no more limit access to particular books than I could to Honey Nut Cheerios.

[littlebug42]

I also have a voracious reader and we have exposed her to a variety of book selections. She reads some fluffier stuff but she also chooses literature on her own. Her favorites that she keeps going back to are "Sarah, Plain and Tall" series and the Little House series. She has also read a few of the Harry Potter books a few times. I direct her towards literature for school but don't make a big deal out of it.

 

My younger daughter is more of a challenge but she has started reading more that is available here in the house. On her own, she picked up a book of Grimm's fairy tales after reading the Usborne fairy tales and just wanting more. I make a variety available and they do choose from it.

[Farrar]

But the food analogy doesn't work for me. Bad for you food is, simply, bad for your body. There's nothing redeeming about it beyond the enjoyment. Lesser quality books on the other hand, still help kids read better. They build reading stamina and help kids understand plot devices and sometimes improve their vocabulary (yes, even junky books can introduce new words). Plus, choosing their own books, even really poor quality ones like Justin Bieber biographies or Pet Fairies or some nonsense, is more likely to create lifelong readers.

 

I also want to point out that while many 7 yos have a basic reading level that indicates they can read a book like Little House or A Wrinkle in Time or the like, there are many other skills involved in reading other than decoding, something us phonics proponents tend to forget. So I think it's completely normal that the OP's dd might be enjoying easier books first.

[acurtis75]

It may just be a matter of letting their vocabulary and reading ability increase to a level that allows them to read a classic book with the same fluidity that they are able to read Magic Tree House which is easier to read. I was in the same situation with my dd but she eventually moved in to wanting to read things like Chronicles of Narnia & The Secret Garden. I discussed the idea of "unabridged" with her and started with things like Alice in Wonderland. She was resistant at first (especially when I suggested something that wasn't her idea) but has now started reading better quality books. My s-in-law pulled her kids out of school after attending public for k-3rd. Both her daughters hated reading & there idea of a good chapter book was an iCarly book that was basically a poor transcript of the show. Gradually over the last year they have shifted from hating reading to loving it and even enjoying Shakespeare. She started with fairy tales with fewer words and beautiful illustrations and is working up from there. Basically, the more you expose them to good literature I think the more they will begin to choose better books. Kind of like when you hear about people starting to go natural with their cooking and meal plans suddenly disliking junk food. Unfortunately personally I'm there with books but not junk food. Maybe one day....:)

[Critterfixer]

I'll try for an analogy. Say my house is stocked with a good variety of reasonably healthy food and lots of tasty fun junk food too. I'm noticing that my kids are eating a lot more of the junk food than I would like. I know that once they developed more sophisticated palates they would enjoy a wider variety, but I can't seem to get them to put down the potato chips and soda to try they most amazing and delightful mango. So I'm wondering what it would be like if from birth I had given them only mangos and homemade Greek yogurt and olives and blueberries and fresh from the garden snow peas. The house would be stocked with plenty of variety and all of it would be theirs to choose among but none of it would be Doritos (aka Captain Underpants or Junie B. Jones).

 

Well, having cooked all my own baby food I can say that a baby that loves avocado and sweet potatoes as an infant is not certain to like them as a toddler or as a child!:tongue_smilie:

But I think there is something more to the food argument that could be added here for further musings. What happens when the adults in the house model healthy habits? If one keeps fresh, wholesome food in the house but then goes out and gets burgers because of time constraints, or chooses a cereal or breakfast pastry because oatmeal takes too long to make then very little wholesome habits will be created in the children, right? I've noticed that I tend to read junk books when my mind is simply too wound up and confused to sit down and concentrate. It's simply a way to relax with easy images, much like sitting down in front of the television. I can get through them quickly because I know the plot, the characters, and I can skip most of the words. But if I am sitting down to a book with some depth, I actually have to budget time for it. It's not something I can do before bed, for example. Almost like planning a meal, cooking it, putting the tablecloth on and sitting down to eat with family. Perhaps if children get to see Mom setting aside reading time for herself with something that is so important that she is altogether engrossed, only stopping now and then to jot down an important point, or underline it, or write it down in her journal, it might make them curious about what could be so worthwhile about dusty old classics.

The thing about really good or great books is that they engage the mind in a way that goes beyond the surface. I've had moments reading great things where I had to stop, go outside and collect myself with a walk before going back to it. You can't gobble them up. Sometimes I think children are used to not having to chew so much and they feel ashamed to come and ask questions or even to admit that they've only read a few paragraphs and feel overwhelmed. It's important to let them know that they have to remember that nobody sits down to eat a 32 oz steak in one sitting if they have any intention of maintaining a state of general well-being. One or two paragraphs might well be a portion for the day.

[yellowperch]

FarrarWilliams, my second post was a reaction to your first, mainly because I felt a horror of being considered closed-minded or controlling. The truth is I am most decidedly in the read what you love camp. But your second comment made me think (your first did as well). Obviously my analogy is faulty, but what if there were more to it than you'd give credit for? What if steady doses of drecky writing really did undermine a child's intellectual development? What if time spent with mediocre thoughts and words stunted her much the way a steady diet of junk food can? Are we sure it doesn't? I'm not a food-nut, but I worry if my kids go on kicks where they eat a lot of sugary foods. What I worry about is not so much that they are eating sugar. Rather, I grow concerned about what they are NOT eating because they are so full of treacle they won't eat anything nutritious. Likewise with books.

 

But now I'm making both eating and reading--two of my greatest pleasures--sound like self-improvement chores. So I think you've hoped me get somewhere in my idle thinking.

 

The comments on this thread have all given me something to mull over. I read all the time, but I don't really discuss my reading with my children, or let them see how it engages me. That's something worth pursuing, too.

Edited September 25, 2011 by yellowperch

[Lisa in the UP of MI]

The only books that I don't allow are the ones that I feel are inappropriate and just plain don't want her reading. She reads whatever she can get her hands on, whether it's dh's National Geographic magazines, my old Sweet Valley Kids books, or The Secret Garden. Basically if a book is in our house and she finds it, she reads it. Today she read all four of the new LOF books (package came today), a few tales by Beatrix Potter, and re-read parts of Matilda (our current bedtime book, but she has already read the whole thing).

[WTMCassandra]

I've been very careful with what my children read. I decided long ago to fill our home with automatic "yes" books, books that were high quality. I didn't view it as controlling my children's tastes but as forming them.

 

I had the classics on my shelf when I was growing up (Anne of Green Gables, Little House on the Prairie, etc.) and I felt that guarded me from being interested in too much "trash." I look back and am appalled that my mother just let me loose in the library every week, for YEARS. Yes, I did read some trash, but I didn't stick with it. I am grateful for tastes early formed.

 

So on my children's free reading shelves are things like children's classics, Sonlight books, and Veritas Press books, along with other titles I have picked up along the way. The love reading, and they don't consider themselves oppressed. Sometimes upon request I have allowed them to move a historical novel from the school shelves to the free reading shelves ; ). I have allowed the occasional light reading, but we don't consume a steady diet of it. And nothing hugely junky except the Raggedy Ann series I have from when I was a child (although to be fair my DH HATES it).

 

I am pleased with the results so far, although the jury is out probably until they have children of their own and decide how to stock their own shelves ; ). I at least dare to hope at this point that they will be the kind of people to HAVE books in their homes!

[Deniseibase]

Well, here's what works for us.

 

DD 11 was a reluctant reader for many years. She did not like me to read aloud to her, she did not like to read, she liked to look at pictures and make up stories. No LD issues or anything, she just didn't care for it. Even as late as fourth grade, I would have been THRILLED if I could have gotten her to read the 'junk' books like Magic Treehouse without fussing and fighting. She read comic books, and the Rainbow Fairies series, that was all she would read without complaint. (You can just imagine the panic this engendered in her book-loving, former English major mom!)

 

In fourth grade, I started telling her she had to read for 20 minutes a day. This was often the hardest 20 minutes of her day - she would look for ANY excuse to interrupt that 20 minutes. And I even told her, she could read ANYTHING she wanted - except it had to be a chapter book she had never read before, no comics, no picture books, no reading the same book over and over. I encouraged her to ask her friends what books they thought she would like. I made a long list of recommendations, everything from Alice in Wonderland to Superfudge to the Pyrdain Chronicles (she pointedly ignored my list). Slowly, over the course of the year, she worked her way through her friend's recommendations of the Warriors series and Harry Potter, and by the end of the year, she would even say that she liked them, although given a choice she would still pick comics on her own time.

 

Moving on to fifth grade - I upped the time requirement, starting with 30 minutes daily at the beginning of the school year and slowly increasing in 5 minute increments until the end of the year we were at 60 minutes. She read more Warriors, and then moved on to Eragon. We discovered that she liked the historical fiction I was assigning once in awhile for history tie-ins, so she read her way through the Royal Diaries series and a few others like Carry On, Mr. Bowditch and By the Great Horn Spoon!. By the end of the year, she had read The Hobbit and was beginning to call herself a good reader. She was also beginning to choose to read books over comics, at least some of the time.

 

Now we are in sixth grade. 60 minutes a day of reading, and I have brought back the list. She has to choose every other book she reads from my list - I've carefully selected things I think she will enjoy, like The Tale of Despereaux and The Sword in the Stone, but I've also included so 'out of her usual genre' choices like The Incredible Journey and From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler. She's also doing a LOT of reading of historical fiction for social studies. So far in the less than two months since school has started she has read A Little Princess, Just So Stories, Dragonsong, Dragonsinger, the first three Tiffany Aching books (she started the fourth one and stopped because it got too intense), and an abridged version of Oliver Twist. Currently she is reading Soul Music and Nory Ryan's Song. She enjoys reading and wants to do it first thing every day, and gets mad when her hour is up.

 

Is everything she's reading a classic? No. And she's rather fixated on a couple of genres. But everything she's reading is a REAL book. The plan is that next year, the book list will get a little harder and include more actual classics. It's not going to turn her into a future English major, but it will do her better than the public schools would have. She's said for the last two years that she wants to go to engineering school, so my goal is develop a love of literature in her that will keep her reading for pleasure when she is an adult, not to make sure she's read X number of classics by the time she heads off to college. She'll read some classics in high school, but I've had to sadly accept that she's probably not going to read all of the ones I would like, and she's not going to do things like read and compare three different translations of Chaucer for her own pleasure, like I did.

 

Now my son is only 5, so, he reads the Bob books so far! :D But, he loves read-alouds, and just counting yesterday we read half of a Magic Treehouse book, two chapters of My Father's Dragon, part of Just So Stories, and about a dozen picture books. His tastes are far-ranging and he likes nearly everything, but especially mysteries and adventures. He's a radically different little person than my daughter was at this age, and I anticipate little trouble 'steering' his literary tastes to better and more complex books than his sister likes. The ultimate goal for him is not just to have him grow up to be a reader, but for him to grow up to be the kind of reader who chooses more complex books, at least part of the time, and isn't 'stuck' in just one or two genres.

 

So, in short - Be persistent. Set your end goals realistically, based on YOUR kid. Be patient - VERY patient. Love of reading HAS to come first, or you're not really going to get anywhere. If all they will read is formulaic series, then gradually wean them over to better quality series, and from there to better books in the same genre or style. Keep setting the bar higher, but move it up very gradually. Some kids will go along with our plans easier than others will :) But any normal child can learn to love real books.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Deniseibase
inability to spell or use grammar at this early hour

[Heidi]

Reading junk books make lifelong readers..... of what?

 

I never read a junkie kid series growing up (I'm not sure if that was neglect from my parents or my own taste) and I have a low tolerance for adult junk now. I'm a book snob.

 

I know voracious adult readers who always have their nose in a junkie book. I don't find that admirable, nor is that a goal I have for my children. I believe books, the ideas and images they convey, are powerful, and time is precious. If I fail to produce voracios readers and my kids only pick up a few books as adults, be they classics or trash, it is better than a lifelong pursuit of junkie books, imo.

Edited September 25, 2011 by hmsmith

[regentrude]

What if steady doses of drecky writing really did undermine a child's intellectual development? What if time spent with mediocre thoughts and words stunted her much the way a steady diet of junk food can? .

 

I believe that a child needs to encounter both great literature and fluff in order to develop the ability to discern quality.

I have never limited my children's reading in any way. I see my 14 year old devour badly written fantasy and being aware that it is not quality - while at the same time being truly excited about Beowulf and The Inferno and calling The Iliad her favorite book.

 

I am also not sure what you would consider a "mediocre thought". I do not know how I would rank "thought" and make sure to think only "quality thoughts". Right now, I am thinking that I need to wake up the kids, set the table and should fill the sugar bowl... quite average, non-sophisticated thoughts which, if I should guess, would constitute the majority of a person's thoughts throughout the day. Who can afford to spend their days thinking big, high quality deep philosophical thoughts?

[NanceXToo]

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. I have have opinions about what constitutes quality, but I have no interest in censoring my kids' reading according to my personal taste, or really much at all beyond really mature topics they're not ready for (and eventually, I won't be censoring that either).

 

Research says that allowing children to choose their books, not giving children books adults think are good, is what turns them into lifelong readers and raises their test scores.

 

So... I personally find that to be an impossible thing to even achieve without withholding books and making lots of rules disallowing my children to read books. The potential struggles I could see ensuing from that and the association of forbidden books strikes me as something I can't imagine personally wanting. It's hard for me to consider the consequences beyond that.

 

:iagree: I don't care what my kids want to read. I just want them to like to read. So far, my daughters do, my son hasn't yet learned how.

[WishboneDawn]

I believe that a child needs to encounter both great literature and fluff in order to develop the ability to discern quality.

I have never limited my children's reading in any way. I see my 14 year old devour badly written fantasy and being aware that it is not quality - while at the same time being truly excited about Beowulf and The Inferno and calling The Iliad her favorite book.

 

I am also not sure what you would consider a "mediocre thought". I do not know how I would rank "thought" and make sure to think only "quality thoughts". Right now, I am thinking that I need to wake up the kids, set the table and should fill the sugar bowl... quite average, non-sophisticated thoughts which, if I should guess, would constitute the majority of a person's thoughts throughout the day. Who can afford to spend their days thinking big, high quality deep philosophical thoughts?

 

I read so much junk as a teenager and young adult. It didn't damage me. It didn't stop my intellectual growth or hinder my thinking ability. It simply gave me a good knowledge of what I now know I never want to read again.

 

I'm watching my daughter go through this right now, much younger then I was when I started to change tastes. She's been reading the Cat Warrior books for a couple of years now. At one point it was almost exclusively Cat Warriors. In the past few months she been introduced to more classical lit and writers who know their craft (ETA: to read on her own I should note. We've done good lit. read alouds for years now). Currently she's reading a Robin McKinley novel and The Illiad. And she came to me yesterday and reluctantly admitted that she's really noticing the difference in quality being those and the Cat Warrior books.

 

I just don't understand why the fluff shouldn't be read. It's not harmful when kids are exposed to better literature. It's harm comes when it's read exclusively but that's really not something I see as an issue with anyone on this forum. So at the very worst it's benign. Except of course that by allowing your child to pick from even the fluff you're giving them the trust and space to make some decisions on these things for themselves.

 

In bigger questions about life we tend to recognize that only good experiences make for a naive soul, that an untested heart is a weak heart. I'm not sure why we chuck out that good sense when it comes to the brain.

Edited September 25, 2011 by WishboneDawn

[ktgrok]

It sounds great in theory, but you know what? I'm a great reader, love good literature, but I'm not willing to give up my romance novels!!! So I could never practice what I preach. I read good books to be amazed and enthralled. But I read romance novels to get a mini vacation from my own life. I want those to be easy to read, with a set plot structure and a guaranteed happy ending. So sue me :)

 

I truly feel that nothing creates confidence in a reader more than reading. Reading a LOT. And nothing does that like letting them choose their own books. I read every Trixie Belden book, Happy Hollister Book, and Bobbsey Twin Book. I didn't like Nancy Drew so much though. But I also read Black Beauty and Romeo and Juliette while in elementary school. When I got older I read every single Sweet Valley High Book, and Nancy Drew Case File, and V.C. Andrews book (those were twisted!). But I also read, on my own, Gone with the Wind, Jane Eyre, etc. I had the confidence to tackle harder books, and longer books, from reading all the fluff.

[ktgrok]

Reading junk books make lifelong readers..... of what?

 

I never read a junkie kid series growing up (I'm not sure if that was neglect from my parents or my own taste) and I have a low tolerance for adult junk now. I'm a book snob.

 

I know voracious adult readers who always have their nose in a junkie book. I don't find that admirable, nor is that a goal I have for my children. I believe books, the ideas and images they convey, are powerful, and time is precious. If I fail to produce voracios readers and my kids only pick up a few books as adults, be they classics or trash, it is better than a lifelong pursuit of junkie books, imo.

 

Well, I am one of those adults. I don't read romance novels and crime fiction to be admirable. I read them because they are fun. You know, fun? And believe it or not, even those "junk" books often times have some great descriptive language that I find beautiful, or thought provoking, or just fun! I also learn quite a bit about various parts of the country from the settings of these books. Generally the author lives in, or has researched, the area the book is set in and that alone makes it fun to read. Heck, even as a kid Trixie Belden books taught me about everything from blind cave fish to the customs of Dia de Los Muertos. Just because it wasn't "fine literature" doesn't mean I didn't learn a lot.

[woolybear]

Continuing with your food analogy.......I think some people having only eaten really good food and then exposed to doritos or a twinkie would balk, maybe taste it and then not be interested. Others, however, having once had a taste of a ring ding (do they still exist? Or yodels? but i digress....) would then want the ring ding. So, I think it could go either way. My approach at this point is to make sure I feed them good healthy food (in reality, this actually applies more to books than food:tongue_smilie:) and let them eat some junk. It's out there, someone will offer it to them ( ie. grandparents or friends and oh so helpful aunts and uncles) or they will find it themselves so I'd rather let a bit okay as long as their sustenance comes from healthier fare.

[regentrude]

Reading junk books make lifelong readers..... of what?

 

I never read a junkie kid series growing up (I'm not sure if that was neglect from my parents or my own taste) and I have a low tolerance for adult junk now. I'm a book snob.

 

I know voracious adult readers who always have their nose in a junkie book. I don't find that admirable, nor is that a goal I have for my children. I believe books, the ideas and images they convey, are powerful, and time is precious. If I fail to produce voracios readers and my kids only pick up a few books as adults, be they classics or trash, it is better than a lifelong pursuit of junkie books, imo.

 

Everybody has times in their day and life when one wants to just sit down and do something relaxing. For some people that is reading a mystery novel or a mildly entertaining adventure story - others sit and watch TV.

Everybody has times of waiting at doctor's offices, airports, bus stops. Some people read, others listen to music or text their friends.

Even the people who read Great books and listen to lectures for pleasure will be unable to do this in every situation - being tired, or having a few minutes to bridge do not lend themselves to deep intellectual pursuit.

So, that might be when you see the adults read their romance novels and detective stories.

 

I have The Divine Comedy on my night stand. If I am too tired, however, I am unable to concentrate on this rather challenging work, so I will read an Agatha Christie novel instead. If I am traveling and anticipate to read for short bursts with frequent interruptions, there is no way I can get into a deep philosophical book and will choose a page turner thriller instead.

 

The people who read no junk whatsoever must do something else in situations where a rigorous intellectual pursuit is not possible. I do not for a minute believe that they have no such times.

[delaney]

I just want them to read. Even if it is not considered great "literature" it takes them mentally to another place, forms pictures in their heads, and give them a way to see the fun in reading. I have a VERY reluctant reader who is delighting in Diary of a Wimpy Kid. Great easy read for her. Her assigned reading on Louis Pasteur, not so fun, but she is managing. I enjoy delightful trash reads too!:tongue_smilie:

[Poke Salad Annie]

Well, I don't know. On one hand, I am delighted to see children reading books at all instead of watching television or playing video games, but I understand the OP's thought.

Putting it another way, one might be thrilled that children are getting exercise playing the Wii, but it that the same as climbing trees, making mud pies and generally galloping wildly around the yard pretending to be horses, dogs, or Celtic warriors? Sometimes I feel the same way about literature created to appeal to the modern child the way I feel about cereal and other processed food in bright attractive packages. Is it wholesome? Probably. Will it hurt them to eat it? No, not usually. Is it real food? Yess. Will they eat it? Yep.

 

 

 

Yes, I agree. I think there is a great difference between the two, and I would hope to aspire for time spent outdoors in the fresh air with adventure play.

 

The problem with so much of what is written nowadays for kids is the insidious potty humor and mouthiness that exists in almost everything I've scanned. Why do kids need to have exposure to those things in their reading? For example, one book of the Wimpy Kids series had a reference to "hemorrhoids". This, I'm sure, was intended to produce guffaws for the reader. (Most likely, it did. But for what purpose?)

[Heidi]

Everybody has times in their day and life when one wants to just sit down and do something relaxing. For some people that is reading a mystery novel or a mildly entertaining adventure story - others sit and watch TV.

Everybody has times of waiting at doctor's offices, airports, bus stops. Some people read, others listen to music or text their friends.

Even the people who read Great books and listen to lectures for pleasure will be unable to do this in every situation - being tired, or having a few minutes to bridge do not lend themselves to deep intellectual pursuit.

So, that might be when you see the adults read their romance novels and detective stories.

 

I have The Divine Comedy on my night stand. If I am too tired, however, I am unable to concentrate on this rather challenging work, so I will read an Agatha Christie novel instead. If I am traveling and anticipate to read for short bursts with frequent interruptions, there is no way I can get into a deep philosophical book and will choose a page turner thriller instead.

 

The people who read no junk whatsoever must do something else in situations where a rigorous intellectual pursuit is not possible. I do not for a minute believe that they have no such times.

 

I agree. I read this forum for entertainment :) A worthy book (according to my standards) doesn't have to be challenging or a rigorous intellectual pursuit. One of my favorite books is very easy to read, highly entertaining, and non-intellectual. However, it has correct grammar, the characters are moral, and the story is well written and uplifting.

[Heidi]

Everybody has times in their day and life when one wants to just sit down and do something relaxing. For some people that is reading a mystery novel or a mildly entertaining adventure story - others sit and watch TV.

Everybody has times of waiting at doctor's offices, airports, bus stops. Some people read, others listen to music or text their friends.

Even the people who read Great books and listen to lectures for pleasure will be unable to do this in every situation - being tired, or having a few minutes to bridge do not lend themselves to deep intellectual pursuit.

So, that might be when you see the adults read their romance novels and detective stories.

 

I have The Divine Comedy on my night stand. If I am too tired, however, I am unable to concentrate on this rather challenging work, so I will read an Agatha Christie novel instead. If I am traveling and anticipate to read for short bursts with frequent interruptions, there is no way I can get into a deep philosophical book and will choose a page turner thriller instead.

 

The people who read no junk whatsoever must do something else in situations where a rigorous intellectual pursuit is not possible. I do not for a minute believe that they have no such times.

 

That's true. For me I read this forum :)

 

From my own observations of people close to me, those readers never pursue any intellectual pursuit and think and act like teenagers as adults. Its a personal situation that I am sure is jading my pov.

[ktgrok]

That's true. For me I read this forum :)

 

From my own observations of people close to me, those readers never pursue any intellectual pursuit and think and act like teenagers as adults. Its a personal situation that I am sure is jading my pov.

 

ah, gotcha! I assure you I lead a very grown up life, research all sorts of intellectual pursuits, watch mainly documentaries, etc etc. But I love a good western romance, or romantic suspense novel.

 

I think saying you should only read high literature is like saying you should never watch a movie or tv show unless it is a classic. Sometimes you just want some Law and Order, lol.

[regentrude]

I agree. I read this forum for entertainment :) A worthy book (according to my standards) doesn't have to be challenging or a rigorous intellectual pursuit. One of my favorite books is very easy to read, highly entertaining, and non-intellectual. However, it has correct grammar, the characters are moral, and the story is well written and uplifting.

 

The OP was talking about "most magnificient literature" - not just correct grammar and moral characters.

Come to think of: how does the fact that the characters are moral have anything to do with the quality of the book? You can have trashy books with correct grammar and moral characters. OTOH, all great works of literature which I have read contain characters who are human and thus have flaws and, at times, behave in ways that are not perfect. If they were, there would be no drama and no conflict and the book would not be read after centuries.

[Heidi]

The OP was talking about "most magnificient literature" - not just correct grammar and moral characters.

Come to think of: how does the fact that the characters are moral have anything to do with the quality of the book? You can have trashy books with correct grammar and moral characters. OTOH, all great works of literature which I have read contain characters who are human and thus have flaws and, at times, behave in ways that are not perfect. If they were, there would be no drama and no conflict and the book would not be read after centuries.

 

I'm aware of that. I was just talking about the redemptive qualities of that one particular book, not all worthy books. Anyhow, it's all a matter of personal opinion isn't it?

 

Let me clarify. I love The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency series. I would not consider that junk at all. Easy read, entertaining, yet uplifting and well written. I'm embarrassed to say I read the vampire series... my opinion... it borders on junk (don't flame me!!). I did really like the last book though. Stuff my mom gives to me occasionally to read... I can't even stomach. Trash, trash, trash.

 

Uncle Tom's Cabin. Easy read, lots of immoral characters, not really intellectual, but has some wonderfully profound ideas. I love that book. :)

 

Children's books I can't stand.. junie b. jones, pinkalicious, stuff like that.

 

All just my opinions. I know we all judge books differently. And you're right, I think i'm a little off topic.

Edited September 25, 2011 by hmsmith

[Farrar]

What if steady doses of drecky writing really did undermine a child's intellectual development? What if time spent with mediocre thoughts and words stunted her much the way a steady diet of junk food can? Are we sure it doesn't?

 

I feel pretty sure from every piece of research I've read that it's simply not true. Bad books can make good readers.

 

Aside from research, I also personally believe that the battle to make kids read only certain books - possibly ones they're not ready for (even if their basic reading skills allow them to decode such a book) - is probably much more harmful to a child's love of reading than a pile of Junie B. Jones or Phineas and Ferb comic books.

 

I absolutely push my kids to read books I think are appropriate and higher quality. Sometimes I even require it. But I would just never take away books they pick out themselves.

[Aubrey]

This was my idle thought of the day (4 soccer practice on four fields in four parts of town today. I'm still feeling car sick...but I've had lots of time to think).

 

Sounds like Plato suggesting that children should be raised surrounded by beauty. Of course, he also said they should be raised away from their parents. ;)

 

We are all compulsive readers here, and our tastes run from junk to great works. Sometimes, however, it seems the junk is more enjoyable than the magnificent works of literature I'd prefer to see my kids reading.

 

Depending on the junk, that sounds healthy to me. :D

 

To put it another way: the Magic Treehouse series was a great bridge from readers to chapter books for my kindergarten and first graders. They have all been thrilled to read a chapter book in a day. They'd all reach for the next one without the blink of an eye. So it was a great bridge, but to where? My dd, for example, read the 25-plus volume Warrior series in about six weeks, but she hasn't been able to get into the Secret Garden or the Little Princess or Wrinkle in Time or Caddie Woodlawn. She's now reading a series about owls. She'll sometimes pick up something a little richer, and she'll readily do her assigned reading, but given half a chance she rushes into the arms of her series.

 

Are you talking about your 7yo? Are you wanting her to read these books to herself, or are you talking read-alouds? If these are books she's supposed to read to herself, she sounds right on track or even ahead. Many things are an acquired taste, & if you force them too early--A Wrinkle in Time or Heidegger, for ex, it could turn a kid off to reading *anything.* Right now, your job is to help expand her vocab & repertoire, but gently, so that she comes away from reading thinking it's a fun activity. Of course her taste will mature!

 

So I'm wondering what it would be like if they had been raised on the best literature, however you'd define it.

 

I really do think reading is such a deeply personal experience, and it largely belongs to the person doing it. I'm not sure how much I want to interfere with my children's reading beyond providing them with things that will delight and/or enlighten them and requiring them to read no small amount of good literature as part of their academic training. Probably not much. But still, I wonder what would have happened if I had read to them only the very best books, and then only stocked the shelves here with the best, from Aesop to Wind in the Willows.

 

Your thoughts?

 

My (big) kids have encountered all the books you've listed, but some were read to them. On their own, they've moved away from MTH to better things. They recognize on their own the difference between the junk & the lit. They prefer the lit. But if they're reading to themselves? I don't think the 8yo could tackle The Secret Garden or A Wrinkle in Time. I don't think the 10yo would be able to enjoy it as much *on the first reading* reading these to himself. The language is pretty difficult in AWIT; the plot is slow-ish in SG. These are both among his favorite books, though.

[Aubrey]

I think what I am imagining sound a lot more draconian than I intended.

 

I'll try for an analogy. Say my house is stocked with a good variety of reasonably healthy food and lots of tasty fun junk food too. I'm noticing that my kids are eating a lot more of the junk food than I would like. I know that once they developed more sophisticated palates they would enjoy a wider variety, but I can't seem to get them to put down the potato chips and soda to try they most amazing and delightful mango. So I'm wondering what it would be like if from birth I had given them only mangos and homemade Greek yogurt and olives and blueberries and fresh from the garden snow peas. The house would be stocked with plenty of variety and all of it would be theirs to choose among but none of it would be Doritos (aka Captain Underpants or Junie B. Jones).

 

I'm just wondering what it would be like, and what the kids would be like. I'm not talking about mind control, just stocking the kitchen with fruit and milk.

 

And anyway, I could no more limit access to particular books than I could to Honey Nut Cheerios.

 

I kind-of thought this was what you meant, & to some extent I agree--I don't buy the really junky junk--Captain Underpants has never had the pleasure of seeing the inside of our house. :lol:

 

But there's another category. Learning to read generally requires several stages of something simplified. Hence some of the junkier stuff: Bob the Builder, MTH.

 

To me, these are just extensions of the phonics book. They have a time & a place, & then? You eventually need the shelf space, so you pack them in the garage until the next kid is ready for them. ;)

[Aubrey]

But the food analogy doesn't work for me. Bad for you food is, simply, bad for your body. There's nothing redeeming about it beyond the enjoyment. Lesser quality books on the other hand, still help kids read better. They build reading stamina and help kids understand plot devices and sometimes improve their vocabulary (yes, even junky books can introduce new words). Plus, choosing their own books, even really poor quality ones like Justin Bieber biographies or Pet Fairies or some nonsense, is more likely to create lifelong readers.

 

I also want to point out that while many 7 yos have a basic reading level that indicates they can read a book like Little House or A Wrinkle in Time or the like, there are many other skills involved in reading other than decoding, something us phonics proponents tend to forget. So I think it's completely normal that the OP's dd might be enjoying easier books first.

 

I'd think of it like grape juice vs wine. It might be awkward for an adult to go to a fine dinner & request grape juice instead of the wine being served, but we don't expect (or want) our kids to develop that particular taste until they're older. The grape juice might be immature for an *adult,* but it's completely appropriate for a 7yo.

 

Hopefully, non-drinkers won't be offended by the analogy. :001_huh:

[Farrar]

I'd think of it like grape juice vs wine. It might be awkward for an adult to go to a fine dinner & request grape juice instead of the wine being served, but we don't expect (or want) our kids to develop that particular taste until they're older. The grape juice might be immature for an *adult,* but it's completely appropriate for a 7yo.

 

Hopefully, non-drinkers won't be offended by the analogy. :001_huh:

 

I like that analogy! Or, just generally turning it to a question of developing a palette. Eating your vegetables deep fried or your fruit with a little sugar or, at the very least, your meal deconstructed into simple bits instead of a complex stew is all appropriate for kids, who really do have different palettes than adults. Our job is to help them develop them, but to start where they are.

[twoforjoy]

Continuing with your food analogy.......I think some people having only eaten really good food and then exposed to doritos or a twinkie would balk, maybe taste it and then not be interested. Others, however, having once had a taste of a ring ding (do they still exist? Or yodels? but i digress....) would then want the ring ding. So, I think it could go either way.

 

Or, just because I enjoy torturing analogies to death, there are people who really enjoyed Twinkies or Spaghetti-Os as a child, and remembers them being so good. They have fond memories of Twinkies and Spaghetti-Os. But when, as an adult, they actually have a taste of Twinkie or a bit of Spaghetti-Os, they realize that they now taste completely gross and cannot imagine ever having liked them.

 

But, remembering how much they loved them as a kid, they decide not to give their kids a childhood devoid of all Twinkies, because maybe they will be as delicious and fun for their kids as they remembered them being.

[twoforjoy]

I guess my take on it is that I want my children to read for fun, in their free time. Just like I don't dictate, beyond having basic rules about safety and behavior, what they should play in their free time or stop them from playing games I think are silly or pointless, I don't dictate what they (at this point, he) can read, beyond keeping him from material too mature for him to handle. If there's a book I think he should read, I either assign it or read it to him. During his free time he can read whatever he wants.

 

I don't know, I must not be as discerning as most people, because while I don't think many children's books are great literature, I don't consider the "fluffy" stuff particularly badly written, at least at the sentence level. All the ones I've read are composed in standard written English and follow the basic conventions of storytelling (exposition--rising action--climax--resolution). So, by reading them kids are internalizing both the structure of standard written English and the structure of basic narratives.

 

If all a child was reading was text messages or tweets, I might indeed agree that there was a problem. But I honestly don't see anything wrong with kids reading less-than-stellar literature. (We even allow Captain Underpants in our house, although DS isn't a big fan and only read the first one.) I do think there are a number of positive benefits to reading easier, lighter books.

 

Right now DS is re-reading the Magic Treehouse series. DH read most of the books to him when he was 4 and 5, and now he's reading them on his own. He enjoys them, I think, because they are a really, really quick read (he usually reads for 1-1/2 to 2 hours before bed, and can get through two Magic Treehouse books during that time); he understands everything going on in them (none of the references or jokes or motivations are over his head); and he can relate to the characters. I'm totally fine with all of that. I think there's something to be said for books that a child enjoys, that make the child feel like a competent reader, and that presents characters the child can relate to. I'm honestly surprised to see how hard people come down on Magic Treehouse, because compared to the stuff I read in elementary school--Babysitters Club, Sweet Valley Twins, and Goosebumps, anyone?--today's children's series seem profound and educational.

 

I also think that most readers wouldn't enjoy a steady diet of only classics; some would, but certainly not all. I read different books for different purposes. Actually, now that I've got so many different ways to read books, I even read different kinds of books in different ways. I find that I tend to listen to mysteries. I put a mystery or crime drama on my iPod and listen as I do chores or knit, and the story keeps my mind engaged while I'm doing something physically repetitive. I like hard copy YA novels. Sometimes I just want to get really immersed in a story that's very immediate and emotionally engaging, and so I'll grab a YA novel and spend the evening with it: I tell DH I'm off duty for the night, then read it in the tub for a bit, bring it in bed, and finish it in one sitting. Classics or more serious novels I'll either keep on my nightstand or read on my Kindle, and I read a chapter or two a night before I go to sleep. I read non-fiction when I have down time to read during the day.

 

But, just like sometimes I don't want to watch a movie that's beautifully written and technically brilliant, and instead watch a Lifetime movie that I know will suck me in and make me cry but that I probably won't think about again once the two hours are up, sometimes (okay, often) when I read I'm looking for a small escapist pleasure, and not for a great work of art. I think the great thing about reading is that, even if you are reading fluff, your small escapist pleasure still has redeeming value.

Edited September 25, 2011 by twoforjoy

[Critterfixer]

Should we post a warning on this thread? Something like "Do Not Read Until After Lunch". I find myself thinking about cream horns.

[nmoira]

I'm picky about what comes into the house, but hardly everything is "classic" or magnificent. If I feel strongly that my (young) kids should be exposed to a particular work, I read it aloud. However, I'm loath to limit the ideas to which they are exposed to a certain time or place or writing style, and I'm deeply suspicious of someone who doesn't at least chuckle at a well-timed fart joke or affectedly groan at a "bad" pun. Are you only going to serve haute cuisine or talk philosophy at table? Take the glitter out of the art supply kit (scrapbooking would be gone altogether... nothing high-brow there)? Something need not be refined to be worthwhile; heck, it need not even be "worthwhile" if we merely need a break or an escape -- "on-hand" will occasionally suffice.

 

And how does one decide which works comprise that class of "most magnificent literature"? It's not something I choose to define. There are beautiful works. There are culturally important works. There are works of ideas and/or ideal. There are works that are read so true, they cut to our very quick or make us laugh so hard we forget ourselves (think Good Omens). Occasionally one or more of these categories overlap, and I suppose that's what makes a truly "great" work.

 

I don't educate my children with the hope they will read only classics, or "worthwhile" works; rather, I educate them with the understanding that they will have the knowledge and ability to read them. For example, early modern English syntax will not trip them up; neither will common historical or geographical references. This isn't the sole focus of our homeschool, but it's an important one. :)

[Sahamamama]

She hasn't been able to get into the Secret Garden or the Little Princess or Wrinkle in Time or Caddie Woodlawn. She's now reading a series about owls. She'll sometimes pick up something a little richer, and she'll readily do her assigned reading, but given half a chance she rushes into the arms of her series.

 

I wonder what would have happened if I had read to them only the very best books, and then only stocked the shelves here with the best, from Aesop to Wind in the Willows.

 

IME, young children are often able to embrace and enjoy the stories and the language of classic books, but are not necessarily up to the work of independently reading them. But I think there is great value in reading aloud these books, especially those rich in vocabulary, poetry, beauty, imagination, and characterization.

 

Last year, I read aloud The Wind in the Willows to my Kindergartner. She loved it. Was it "over her head" in some ways? Perhaps. Could she (then) have managed it independently? She could have read the words, but I wouldn't say she could have independently handled the story.

 

After we had read aloud the whole story, I placed the book on the shelf. She picked it up and began to read -- or was it "re-read?" -- the book, in bits and pieces. She would find her favorite parts and read them, either aloud or silently. There she was, five years old, curled up with Rat and Mole and Toad, and laughing at the funny parts. Reading the book aloud had opened it up to her.

 

There have been times when I've scratched my head about other people's choices of books on those "Good Books" lists. We start to read and wonder, "How did THIS book ever get on a list?" If we don't like a book, we just stop reading it, no matter how many lists it is shows up on. My main consideration in deciding what's "good" and what's "poor" is how rich and wonderful the language is.

 

I've noticed that all the girls now avoid simplistic, boring writing. They choose poetic, well-written books over insipid books most of the time. HTH.

[twoforjoy]

My main consideration in deciding what's "good" and what's "poor" is how rich and wonderful the language is.

 

I think language is important. But, for me, I also see the value in a good story. When beautiful language and a great story go together, that's wonderful. But I can certainly enjoy--and have no problem with my children enjoying--a good story even when the writing is mediocre.

[leeannpal]

Well, I'm not sure how my daughter and I would fit into this conversation. Even tought I was an English Literature major in college, I usually prefer to read non-fiction books over fiction. My daughter seems to be following in my footsteps. She likes the Magic tree House books, but not the fiction stories. She likes the non-fiction ones. For her summer book project, she is the only one in her class who read a non-fiction book-one about the Titanic.

 

Of course I see the value in introducing what is generally known as good literature to my daughter. But, I don't make judgements on others who choose to read books that don't appeal to me. I'm sure some of my choices would be questionable to a few posters on this thread.

[Lori D.]

I also want to point out that while many 7 yos have a basic reading level that indicates they can read a book like Little House or A Wrinkle in Time or the like, there are many other skills involved in reading other than decoding, something us phonics proponents tend to forget. So I think it's completely normal that the OP's dd might be enjoying easier books first.

 

 

Agreeing with Farrarwilliams, and adding:

My first thought was that Wrinkle in Time, Caddie Woodlawn, and Secret Garden were at a maturity and complexity level more suited for the solo reading of an 11-12yo, not a 9yo.

 

For their own enjoyment, children tend to go for books that are at or slightly below their comfortable reading level. Maybe I "babied" our DSs, but we used some of those classics listed in the original post as read-alouds when they were 7-9yo -- or, at ages 9-10 as out loud together school time readings ("you read a page, I read a page").

 

At age 9, what our DSs chose to pick up and read voluntarily as solo reading were things like the Warriors series; Calvin & Hobbes collections; books with "exploded view" illustrations (mostly just enjoyed the illustrations); Ranger Rick magazines; Jigsaw Jones and other mystery series; etc. It wasn't until about age 11-12 they were more interested in some of those traditional "children's classics". I just made sure that I always left tons of books around -- without the obviously junky stuff like Animorphs or Captain Underpants. (Although, I have heard a few parents say that those very books were the ones that kept their struggling reader hanging on and helped them over the hump into fluent reading -- Calvin & Hobbes did that for our struggling reader!! So, maybe there's a place for even what *I* would consider the worst of the junk food books. ;) )

 

 

Original Poster: How wonderful you have a READER! :001_smile: And... patience! Your DC will work into those classics when the time is ripe for them. :) BEST of luck in your family's reading journey! Warmest regards, Lori D.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Lori D.

[crazyforlatin]

For OP, maybe it depends on the reading level and content of the classics. DD refuses to read or have me read Peter Pan and Wind in the Willows, but she has re-read The Hobbit several times. I thought that after she read all the Harry Potter books that The Hobbit could not possibly interest her, but I was very wrong. I thought that after listening to the Percy Jackson series, she would not want to read FMOG, but again I was wrong. Maybe we can start a list of classics that our younger kids loved on another thread. I'm sure there is some classic book that will capture their hearts. And if not, just let them enjoy whatever they read because their tastes will change as they mature.

[Haiku]

So I'm wondering what it would be like if they had been raised on the best literature, however you'd define it.

 

Hard?

 

Honestly, at the rate my dd9 reads, and has read for several years, if I restricted her to reading only "the most magnificent" literature, there would be a serious dearth of reading material for her. She could plow through all the books on the Newberry shelf at the library in a few months, and then what?

 

Much of what we consider great literature is not geared toward 6-10 year olds. And sometimes reading is just a fun diversion, not an exercise in greatness.

 

I do restrict what the kids read, to some degree. Captain Underpants and Junie B. have never darkened our doorstep. But my dd reads a great mix of great books (which I buy cheap at library sales) and fun books ... like the neverending Warriors series.

 

I wouldn't want to have to police my child's reading the way I would have to in order to restrict it only to magnificent books.

 

Tara

[foxbridgeacademy]

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. I have have opinions about what constitutes quality, but I have no interest in censoring my kids' reading according to my personal taste, or really much at all beyond really mature topics they're not ready for (and eventually, I won't be censoring that either).

 

Research says that allowing children to choose their books, not giving children books adults think are good, is what turns them into lifelong readers and raises their test scores.

 

So... I personally find that to be an impossible thing to even achieve without withholding books and making lots of rules disallowing my children to read books. The potential struggles I could see ensuing from that and the association of forbidden books strikes me as something I can't imagine personally wanting. It's hard for me to consider the consequences beyond that.

 

:iagree: Restricting reading to only "great works" is like only ever watching Masterpiece Theatre, and never getting to experience Doctor Who. Veggies and no ice cream! Life would become way too serious and very boring. Yes, reading quality material is important, but so is reading something just for fun. In the end I think a child who isn't allowed to escape into her favorite bit of nonsense will in time hate reading.... and will likely sneak a bit of "fluff" on the side (from my own personal experience).

[timetoteach]

But the food analogy doesn't work for me. Bad for you food is, simply, bad for your body. There's nothing redeeming about it beyond the enjoyment. Lesser quality books on the other hand, still help kids read better. They build reading stamina and help kids understand plot devices and sometimes improve their vocabulary (yes, even junky books can introduce new words).

:iagree:

[timetoteach]

I encourage good literature and classics but allow fluff (although I feel awkward using this term). I aim not to ban, but create conversation with my children regarding the elements that make good literature. I don't want to "shelter" them from certain books, creating unnecessary battles that can be avoided by just talking with my kids about why some books are preferred over others. The analogy works with food too. I stock healthy food, but do not ban sweets at special occasions, b-day parties, etc. Plus, the junk food analogy is flawed b/c classics can be just as satisfying as fluff, and while one can develop a palette for healthy food, I'd hate to give up an occasional chocolate or ice-cream. Reading Jane Austen is synonymous with dessert, IMO!

[Hedgehogs4]

nm

[Critterfixer]

The question would also get into the idea of what constitutes really great classics for children. I might consider Treasure Island to be wonderful, but balk at Swiss Family Robinson or Hans Brinker, or The Five Little Peppers. So it would come down to a matter of taste.

And children have tastes in literature too. Our job may be to provide as common fare the best within our taste range, to look at the books the child enjoys both in the good books category, and what the child reads for light entertainment and augment the good books list to include things that might interest the child, even if we don't find those books particularly wonderful. And tastes do change over time.

As a child I enjoyed Lucy Maud Montgomery, but now I can't take in much at a time. The descriptive tendencies and overblown language are a bit too much for me.:001_smile: I also remember that my little sister did not really enjoy them at all at the same age when I did, and that my little brother, going against all convention and expectation, loved them!

[MerryAtHope]

Why not just read to her some of the great literature she's missing? There may be a maturity quality to reading those that she just isn't ready for yet on her own. There's a historical & cultural difference to overcome in several of the titles you mentioned that might make them more appropriate as read-alouds at her age. I've read all kinds of great lit to my kids--for example, I read the whole Little Women series to my kids several years ago, but I know I didn't read it for myself until Jr. High age--sure enough, my 7th grade daughter is now picking it up to read. A younger child can understand and enjoy it with discussion (we had some great talks during those books!), but really the themes are much more appreciated independently when a child is older.

 

I feed my kids a steady diet of rich, wonderful literature, and I don't worry so much what they read on their own.

 

Merry :-)