What do you think about this article? New series for boys by author of American Girls

[hlee]

Saw this article and thought I'd share it:

 

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2D514v/www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/american-girl-series-author-creating-series-for-boys/2011/10/25/gIQArC6FKM_story.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzheads

 

Interested what you all think about the line that non-fiction or books in the "grossology" category is as beneficial for boys reading-wise as traditional fiction narrative.

 

Also, can someone tell me about this "Captain Underpants" series? Is it twaddle-ish? Appropriate for a 6 year old?

[Julie Smith]

I read the first two pages, then I had to stop since I didn't want to register to get the third page.

 

I know from reading various other articles and books that this article is saying what many other articles are saying. Basically that boys like 'boy' books.

 

But these articles just don't fit into my family. I have two boys who love the typical 'girl' books. I read my 5 and 7 year old the whole "Laura" series including "The Little House on the Prairie" and it was a all time favorite. They just wanted more and more.

 

I guess I was just turned off by the fact the author of the article was stating to NO 7 year old boy would like "The Little House on the Prairie". I think it also said all boys would like "Captain Underpants" which was a total flop here.

 

I would have taken the article more seriously if they said, "Most boys". or "We surveyed so many boys and found...". But the fact the author is basically saying NO boy could like books like my boys do - is almost like he is stating that there is something wrong with them. So I gave the article a thumbs down.

[Mommy22alyns]

 

I guess I was just turned off by the fact the author of the article was stating to NO 7 year old boy would like "The Little House on the Prairie". I think it also said all boys would like "Captain Underpants" which was a total flop here.

 

I would have taken the article more seriously if they said, "Most boys". or "We surveyed so many boys and found...". But the fact the author is basically saying NO boy could like books like my boys do - is almost like he is stating that there is something wrong with them. So I gave the article a thumbs down.

 

 

This, yes. I think the concept is a great idea though.

[Jenny in Florida]

Honestly?

 

Articles like that make me crazy.

 

I have a boy. I never allowed nonsense like Captain Underpants in our house. And yet, somehow, he still reads like crazy. In fact, he reads much more than my daughter.

 

And you know what? He likes Shakespeare, too. We took him to his first play when he was seven, and he's been going every year since. He reads the plays, too.

 

Argh.

 

Of course boys aren't "bad versions of girls," but it always seems to me that articles like this are saying they somehow can't handle what girls do.

 

I think we way underestimate our guys.

[yellowperch]

The books sound a little canned and tedious. Fiction with an agenda (or a formula) is a very risky enterprise, and usually does not work. Give my sons, daughter, and me a good story and we will read.

[GoVanGogh]

The article drove me crazy, but I have a book-crazy boy.

 

The scaretistics are quoted a lot, and at first glance, they don’t look good: Boys can’t read. Boys can read but won’t. Boys would read, if they thought there was anything out there that was worth reading.

There are so many wonderful books out there for boys. My son loved Little Duke, Inkheart series, Eldest series... So many of the books on Ambleside Online are classic old books for boys. The Latin-Centered Curriculum and TWTM also offer many books for boys.

I do think that many of the newer books for boys are trash, but books published pre-1960s still appeal to boys. But what do I know? My son likes Shakespeare. ;)

 

To sound totally sexist here... I normally try to find books by male authors for my son. (When I outsource classes, I also try to find male instructors.) The lady pictured in that article may well be able to write books that appeal to boys and I would certainly read one or two before I judged them. But she looks so... grandmotherly. My DS does like his books a bit 'rough and tumble.' The image of her writing a book like, say, "Revenge of the Whale: The True Story of the Whaleship Essex" made me giggle. :tongue_smilie:

[WeeBeaks]

I think the article is nonsense honestly, to drum up business for their book series.

 

Speaking of which, why don't they do a historical series then? My oldest is an avid reader, and I do find plenty. Boys do like books other than adventure, though I will say adventure is popular in this house. The "Dear America" series is almost 90% about girls too. My son still enjoys them, but it would be nice to see more of a 50/50 mix in the historical fiction like that. There are loads of sci-fi/fantasy for boys that have good authors that appeal to boys.

 

We allow Captain Underpants - occasionally. I read some easy reads too in my diet of reading. Even my 9yo admits they are poorly written, but he enjoys one now and again, along with comic books, animorphs and the like. He likes classics and well-written popular modern books too.

[Homeschooling6]

I read the first two pages, then I had to stop since I didn't want to register to get the third page.

 

I know from reading various other articles and books that this article is saying what many other articles are saying. Basically that boys like 'boy' books.

 

But these articles just don't fit into my family. I have two boys who love the typical 'girl' books. I read my 5 and 7 year old the whole "Laura" series including "The Little House on the Prairie" and it was a all time favorite. They just wanted more and more.

 

I guess I was just turned off by the fact the author of the article was stating to NO 7 year old boy would like "The Little House on the Prairie". I think it also said all boys would like "Captain Underpants" which was a total flop here.

 

I would have taken the article more seriously if they said, "Most boys". or "We surveyed so many boys and found...". But the fact the author is basically saying NO boy could like books like my boys do - is almost like he is stating that there is something wrong with them. So I gave the article a thumbs down.

 

:iagree:my boys love The Little House books. We have the whole series on audio and they listen to them weekly. I think Brent has memorized the series:D. And some of my boys listen to Elsie Dinsmore as well:001_smile:.

[Farrar]

I loathe the word "twaddle." I'd like to hunt down Charlotte Mason's ghost and make her read everything Dav Pilkey ever wrote.

 

They're not expressing an opinion when they say boys don't read enough. They're quoting statistics. When they say boys don't want to read because there's nothing to read about, they're quoting the boys themselves. This is not an imaginary problem. You know what else studies tell us? Letting kids pick their own books is what creates lifelong, capable readers.

 

And Valerie Tripp is someone who has worked in creative ways to get kids reading for many, many years with great results.

 

The problem of finding good "boy books" is, IMHO, overstated. I think there's a bigger problem with teachers and librarians who don't know children's literature or how to connect a child with a book. And the fact that reading instruction in schools is riddled with problems is another whole can of worms feeding into this issue, as is the ways in which we shortchange boys in the classroom. But there is an actual issue. One that can be helped by having more books boys want. I know many people here are skeptical that Captain Underpants can be a "gateway series" to other things, but practicing reading is what increases reading fluency.

 

I'm so sick of this debate on this board. :( We like classics here too. And new books. Nor do I judge my kids if they like something or take books from them.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I think part of the problem is that the conventional wisdom is not correct. According to the article...

 

"The conventional wisdom is that there are fewer books for boys because boys read less, because there are fewer books for boys, because boys read less, because because because."

 

There was an article a while back about the fact that in homeschools, there was no difference between boys and girls in volume of reading. I kind of suspect that boys who are in school read less because they are taught largely by women and surrounded by girls who, by and large, can handle sit-down-and-school situations more successfully at an earlier age than boys. I think boys lose patience with boring basal readers and then learn to loathe reading because of that. At home, we were reading Charlotte's Web and Little House and My Father's Dragon and all kinds of wonderful stuff that was engaging for girls and boys alike. Plus, our boys get plenty of time to run around like wild things and get their energy out so that their brains work more effectively when it is time to sit down and read or work.

 

I personally do not see a shortage of great books for boys. Of course, I see most classics as pretty unisex and that's what we stick to for the most part. Still, there is some great stuff out there for boys.

 

The article drove me crazy, but I have a book-crazy boy.

 

There are so many wonderful books out there for boys. My son loved Little Duke, Inkheart series, Eldest series... So many of the books on Ambleside Online are classic old books for boys. The Latin-Centered Curriculum and TWTM also offer many books for boys.

I do think that many of the newer books for boys are trash, but books published pre-1960s still appeal to boys. But what do I know? My son likes Shakespeare. ;)

 

To sound totally sexist here... I normally try to find books by male authors for my son. (When I outsource classes, I also try to find male instructors.) The lady pictured in that article may well be able to write books that appeal to boys and I would certainly read one or two before I judged them. But she looks so... grandmotherly. My DS does like his books a bit 'rough and tumble.' The image of her writing a book like, say, "Revenge of the Whale: The True Story of the Whaleship Essex" made me giggle. :tongue_smilie:

 

I agree. I think men get boys in a way that women can't always. I know DH understands our boys more than I ever will. :lol: DS8 loves the Horrible Histories and other stuff DD wouldn't want to touch with a ten foot pole. Obviously, women can write successfully for boys (hello J.K. Rowling!) but sometimes DS seems to crave macho content. He wants battles and a bit of gore. Then he'll turn around and read Alice in Wonderland without stigma or shame, just as it should be.

[Momof3littles]

My eldest child is 7.5, and loves to read the AG books. He hasn't been exposed to Captain Underpants. He loved the Little House on the Prairie series. He enjoys very "boy" type literature, but he totally enjoys the AG books as well. I'm glad he doesn't know he's not supposed to like them.

[bmb1373]

I agree with farrar. I am thankful I have a 7 yo that LOVES to read... he likes to ride his bike, beat up his brother, and wants to go hunting. But speaking with others they have a hard time getting their boys to read; so Captain Underpants is a blessing if they read it willingly. My guy will read Minn of the Mississippi, books on trains, submarines, music, he LOVES Calvin and Hobbes and Garfield. Yes I like to read the classics with him because the vocabulary and grammar are superior (most of the time). What is wrong with light reading from time to time... I love historical romances to "shut down" with from time to time. There are still words I can learn.. my mind is working.

 

I hope her books are good and engaging for the boys... we read all of the Little House series over the summer.. then 6 yo and 4 yo boys. I do wonder if she can reach them like a man could. There are a lot of things I don't get; because I am a woman!

 

The info they used was what is out in the world... many of our kids aren't going to fit that mold...that's why they are home. Some might be worse...may be another reason they are home. I think if they can impart even a little history into the books then more power to them and kudos for trying.

[yellowperch]

I agree with Farrar that the article is describing a real problem. And I know personally that kids can go from Capt. Underpants to Diary of a Wimpy Kid to 39 Clues to the Lightening Thief to Harry Potter to Narnia and beyond. And the route and destination do not matter as much as the journey--the book and the reader and whatever intimate experience the reader is having in his/her imagination.

 

I also appreciate Valerie Tripp for the American Girl series. My daughter has loved those books, and will read them again I am sure. I do sometimes bristle at the weird intense "give me" reaction even I get from the whole American Girl industry. Whenever I look at a catalog I want to buy everything. So I've spent a little time thinking about that strange acquisitive and commercial side of the AG Empire, and come away feeling cranky about it.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I still think books written to fit a narrow agenda and very specific formula smell a little phony. That said, a history series with boys as the main characters just might do for American history what Percy Jackson has done for Greek mythology, at least in my house.

Edited October 28, 2011 by yellowperch

[lea1]

I read the first two pages, then I had to stop since I didn't want to register to get the third page.

 

I know from reading various other articles and books that this article is saying what many other articles are saying. Basically that boys like 'boy' books.

 

But these articles just don't fit into my family. I have two boys who love the typical 'girl' books. I read my 5 and 7 year old the whole "Laura" series including "The Little House on the Prairie" and it was a all time favorite. They just wanted more and more.

 

I guess I was just turned off by the fact the author of the article was stating to NO 7 year old boy would like "The Little House on the Prairie". I think it also said all boys would like "Captain Underpants" which was a total flop here.

 

I would have taken the article more seriously if they said, "Most boys". or "We surveyed so many boys and found...". But the fact the author is basically saying NO boy could like books like my boys do - is almost like he is stating that there is something wrong with them. So I gave the article a thumbs down.

 

:iagree: My boys love the Little House series too.

[Dahliarw]

Why can't they do it historically based? That would make so much more sense coming from the AG authors.

[silliness7]

The books sound a little canned and tedious. Fiction with an agenda (or a formula) is a very risky enterprise, and usually does not work. Give my sons, daughter, and me a good story and we will read.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

When I think of American Girl books I instantly think History and Dolls.

 

Without the history and a physical product all you have is another book series. One that does not sound very exciting.

 

Why not a historical fiction biography series about all the great kings and some villains too. Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, Julius Caesar, Henry VIII. Make a set of action figures to go with it. My boys would think that was totally cool!! We read a biography on Charlemagne that was amazing, I thought. A little slow in parts and more difficult than the average reader would tackle and certainly not my reluctant reader. But he has a cool story.

 

I think that the kinds of things that boys groove on - powerful rulers, world domination, war, etc. are not PC. It's also not PC to make a series of books with only MEN, how chauvinist. How oppressive to our girls. :tongue_smilie: So we've resorted to writing about farts and boogers just so the boys will read *something*. Because, for the most part, they're just not interested in "girl power", romance or relationships. Go figure. Science fiction can steer past the inappropriate content of power and war, etc. But true events and real people hold a fascination for my boys. And others too I guess, hence the popularity of non-fiction for their gender.

 

I do have a son who is a voracious reader, btw. He read the Ramona books dozens of time and I think he's read some of his sister's American Girl books, just because they're there. I can't see him reading these camp books.

[Trabug]

I agree with farrarwilliams that great boy books already exist. You don't need to go back to the Hardy Boys for adventure. The Magic Tree House series offers great gender-neutral historical adventure for early chapter books, plus the study guides rock. Then there are all of Roald Dahl's books, a little more high brow than Captain Underpants, but tons of boy appeal. While I'm plugging my son's faves, Gordon Korman also scores pretty high.

 

I just don't see the novelty or appeal of this new series.

[Stellalarella]

When I read Jim Trelease's book, The Read Aloud Handbook, this fact stuck in my mind--that a child is more likely to read if he sees his father reading. Man, I don't have this book with me right now to look it up, so I hope that I am remembering correctly. :001_smile:

 

Do the backs of cereal boxes count as reading material? My boys like those....maybe we should print serial novels on the back of fruit loops. OH, wait, let's put twaddle on the lucky charms and something much more classic on the fiber flakes. :001_smile:

 

I digress.

 

Maybe we should talk about good books for mom and dad sit and read...

[cathmom]

We started the workbox system this year, and I have been putting the Kaya books into my 8 yo son's boxes. He loves them. I plan to have him read all of the series with all the characters. He and my younger sons have been playing the games on the AG website too. So I was thinking the other day - why don't they do an American boy series just like AG??? And I was excited to see this thread title, but -

 

I don't like this camp idea thing though.

 

I agree, I've read my boys fairy tales and Heidi and they've watched A Little Princess and they all love the Barbie movies. They're not in school, so they don't know that they aren't supposed to like these things LOL.

[twoxcell]

Why not a historical fiction biography series about all the great kings and some villains too. Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, Julius Caesar, Henry VIII. Make a set of action figures to go with it. My boys would think that was totally cool!! We read a biography on Charlemagne that was amazing, I thought. A little slow in parts and more difficult than the average reader would tackle and certainly not my reluctant reader. But he has a cool story.

:iagree:

My ds would love that! He loves any books having to do with history. He also loves Little House on the Prairie the books and TV show, and he is as all boy as they come. In the end I think it has to do with the peer pressure of PS. My ds has no clue that boys aren't supposed to read or watch certain things because they are too girly. There is no one here to make fun of him or call him a nerd if he is reading.;) I have have no interest in Captain Underpants being a gateway to The Diary of a Wimpy Kid.:ack2: Just the preview of the Wimpy Kid movie made me ill.:lol:

[serendipitous journey]

I I have two boys who love the typical 'girl' books. I read my 5 and 7 year old the whole "Laura" series including "The Little House on the Prairie" and it was a all time favorite. They just wanted more and more.

 

a bit off topic; but am so glad to have seen this! Button (a boy) loves true or realistic books, and really doesn't like unkindness or interpersonal tension. I think he'll love the Little House books but they hadn't occurred to me. :):):)

 

ps -- editing after reading whole thread to 'fess up that Button also likes riding his bike and messing with his brother (hunting's not an easy option in Northern CA). He just doesn't like _other people's_ unkindnesses ...

Edited October 28, 2011 by serendipitous journey
clarity. also grammar.

[Alte Veste Academy]

When I read Jim Trelease's book, The Read Aloud Handbook, this fact stuck in my mind--that a child is more likely to read if he sees his father reading. Man, I don't have this book with me right now to look it up, so I hope that I am remembering correctly. :001_smile:

 

Yes, boys read more if they see their fathers reading.

 

They're not in school, so they don't know that they aren't supposed to like these things LOL.

 

Yep. It's true that some school kids like to read but, by and large, I think there is a lot of peer pressure against reading where boys are concerned.

[Lily_Grace]

Well, I'm a bit sad. Why couldn't they do an American Boy series? Instead of dolls, package up equipment for each set: a canteen, shovel, helmet for WWI boy George; marbles, a horn book, ship's log and spyglass for Revolutionary boy William...

 

It is hard to find good historical fiction books for boys, especially series. The author in the article was right - there's the Hardy boys and little else. My America/My Name is America are sometimes boys, but they're not really much of a continuing story.

 

I'm bummed. I really thought they'd finally do it. I guess we'll still be waiting.

[Faithr]

How did boys in former days learn to enjoy reading? Did they need a 'gateway series' to get them started? Nonsense. All this is very condescending to kids' intelligence. Did Abraham Lincoln need Captain Underpants to make him want to walk miles to borrow a book? I think not. LOL!

 

I think the flaw in our reasoning is that we (society/our public ed culture/media) think it is virtuous for 7 yo's to read voraciously and independently even if what they read is crappy pablum. I just don't think that's true. My kids have all been late readers. They had lots of wonderful lit read aloud to them for years. When they finally do read they tend to want to read good stuff and turn their noses up at "canned for kids who like bathroom humor" junk.

 

There's reading and there's reading, it seems to me! I know women who only read trashy best sellers/romances. No matter how much they read, they are still ignorant! That's not what I want for my kids. That's not why I'm educating them at home. It seems to me that some of these gateway books are just a children's answer to mindless romance novels or what have you. If you feed a kid junk food they may or may not decide that eating healthy is better later on. No, I think they are more likely to want to continue eating junk food. Same with books.

 

I do agree that twaddle is a really hard word to define. But I also think there are objective differences in the quality of language and thought in books and some are ennobling and broadening and others are a waste of time. I'd rather have my child read fewer books of higher worth than lots of books of questionable value. Reading should be its own reward. I think publishers just play off parents fears that reading just isn't 'fun' enough for kids to enjoy for its own sake. And I say this as a mother of 5 ALL of whom have had learning disabilities when it comes to reading.

 

When I see the huge space at Barnes and Noble set aside for "Teen Paranormal Romances" I see the fruit of the 'We've got to bend over backwards to make reading palatable to youth; content doesn't matter; it's all about volume" kind of thinking. Which now that I think about it, really suits publishers. They don't have to publish especially good books. They can just crank em out without caring about quality. Maybe some of the teens who read paranormal romances will go on to appreciate the classics but I am doubtful.

 

Okay, off my soapbox! Feel free to disagree!

[Susie in MS]

Faith, what a wonderful post! I agree with every word. :D

[Jenny in Florida]

I'm so sick of this debate on this board. :( We like classics here too. And new books. Nor do I judge my kids if they like something or take books from them.

 

For what it's worth, my kids do read their share of what others would call "twaddle." I don't quibble with you at all that there are contemporary books that help kids learn to read and to love reading.

 

My son, for example, read some of the Teacher from the Black Lagoon and Time Warp Trio books when he was making the transition from decoding to reading.

 

However, I do object to the widely held belief that boys won't read unless the book relies on gross humor and simplistic writing, which is what "boy books" so often seem to do.

 

I think there is a position between "Ah, just give them crap, because at least they're reading" and "My children read only fine literature and have never heard of Harry Potter." I've worked hard to find that balance.

[Jenny in Florida]

When I think of American Girl books I instantly think History and Dolls.

 

When my son was younger, I used to wish so much that there was a product line like American Girls that would appeal to him. (Full disclosure: I don't actually think the AG books are all that well written. And the history covered is sometimes a little shaky. But they did inspire a love of history for my daughter.)

 

In my fantasy, there would be books about boys from different historical eras, and each one would have a selection of historically accurate toys that matched the book. The books would have the boys going on adventures (safe and wholesome ones, of course), and the merchandise would open the door for my own son to play out the stories.

 

I imagined beautifully made tops and compasses and slingshots . . .

 

Sigh. Maybe in time for my imaginary future grandson.

[Susie in CA]

Just a few thoughts...

 

My boys love to read, however, given the choice they would rather watch something. Many boys are visual. They watch shows, videogames, youtube etc. My boys read a lot because their watching time is limited in our house. This is not true for lots of boys we know.

 

I don't like the Little House in the Prairie books. They bore me to tears. There is nothing happening. My boys feel the same way. So we don't read them.

 

The Captain Underpants series is twaddle. I allow them and they boys did read them for a while. However, this is the type of book we don't introduce to them. Dss find these anyway. They don't need help finding easy read books like these.

 

Imo, time is the biggest issue. They are in school all day, then they may be out at soccer practice or whatever. When they get home there is homework. I wouldn't want to spend my weekend reading either. I'll be outside playing and then watching a movie, too. We (as a society) take too much time away from them.

[Hockey Mom]

I allow Captain Underpants...in moderation. :p I also allow the 'Stink' books by Megan McDonald.

 

I am routinely surprised by my boys' choices in books when they choose their weekly library books though. DS8 always picks up 5-6 'human body' books - not exactly literature, but he can intelligently discuss various aspects of the human body. And he's forever asking me (and his RN Grandmother) how to pronounce medical terms. DS7 gravitates toward cookbooks. Give him a cookbook, and he will read for hours AND plan a menu. LOL

 

I keep picking up classics to read to them, and while they'll listen and engage, it's not where their heart is. It's just not interesting enough at this stage to get them to pick up a classical story and read with enthusiasm. I guess I figured that just exposing them to good literature is enough for now.

[RootAnn]

They're not expressing an opinion when they say boys don't read enough. They're quoting statistics. When they say boys don't want to read because there's nothing to read about, they're quoting the boys themselves. This is not an imaginary problem. You know what else studies tell us? Letting kids pick their own books is what creates lifelong, capable readers.

[snip]

The problem of finding good "boy books" is, IMHO, overstated. I think there's a bigger problem with teachers and librarians who don't know children's literature or how to connect a child with a book. And the fact that reading instruction in schools is riddled with problems is another whole can of worms feeding into this issue, as is the ways in which we shortchange boys in the classroom. But there is an actual issue. One that can be helped by having more books boys want.

[snip]

 

:iagree: I didn't find anything wrong with the article or the idea of the new series. The author was quoting "conventional wisdom" and "statistics." (I recently found Jon Scieszka's stuff and my DH loves it. Do check out guysread.com. There is a section for Little Guys.)

 

My boys aren't old enough to run into the problem of books to read, but I'll tell you that at my local library, there aren't enough books in that middle area between "chapter books" and "youth fiction." It was really hard to find books (in my small, local library) for my emerging (girl) reader. I'm sure it will be just as hard or harder for my boys.

 

I have friends whose boys read & prefer non-fiction overwhelmingly. IMO, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is *harder* to read than fiction, at least for me.

 

I do wish there was more historical fiction with boys as main characters. Perhaps there is & I haven't found it yet. Either way, I'm glad my little boys like to be read to, and I hope they will continue to have a love for reading when they get older.

[Milknhoney]

All I have to say is, I am relieved to see how many of you said your boys loved the Little House books! I read the first two to my son last year and he enjoyed them. Problem is that Dh was not happy to see how many "girl" books I was reading to him. (He hasn't said anything about it but I know he is displeased with the fact that my son is currently reading Pippi Longstocking and enjoying it immensely). Maybe I am steering off topic a little, but the struggle in my house is whether reading "girly" books is somehow immasculating my son. The issue isn't "what can I get him to read", but rather, "what affect are all these girl-centered books having on his personal identity?" I am trying to placate Dh, but I do have a hard time finding as many books that are of the literary quality of Little House and Pippi, only about boys. Some of that may be my own ignorance, because being a girl myself those are the books I am most familiar with. Thank goodness for Roald Dahl. He loves those! I am always on the watch for posts that suggest quality literature for young boys.

[Homemama2]

All I have to say is, I am relieved to see how many of you said your boys loved the Little House books! I read the first two to my son last year and he enjoyed them. Problem is that Dh was not happy to see how many "girl" books I was reading to him. (He hasn't said anything about it but I know he is displeased with the fact that my son is currently reading Pippi Longstocking and enjoying it immensely). Maybe I am steering off topic a little, but the struggle in my house is whether reading "girly" books is somehow immasculating my son. The issue isn't "what can I get him to read", but rather, "what affect are all these girl-centered books having on his personal identity?" I am trying to placate Dh, but I do have a hard time finding as many books that are of the literary quality of Little House and Pippi, only about boys. Some of that may be my own ignorance, because being a girl myself those are the books I am most familiar with. Thank goodness for Roald Dahl. He loves those! I am always on the watch for posts that suggest quality literature for young boys

 

Now see, I wouldn't consider those books 'girl' books at all. Little House books may have girls as the main people, but so much of those books are describing life back on the prairie. My boys LOVE those books. And Pippi Longstocking (which I also read to my boys a few months ago) is just funny. I never think twice about my boys reading books like that. Those are classics. But if dh is concerned, then I would respect that. There are really tons that do appeal to boys, especially if you check different homeschool curriculum lists (Sonlight, Ambleside, etc). My boys have really been enjoying the historical fiction books that go along with our Simply Charlotte Mason history curriculum. My son is reading The Vikings right now by Elisabeth Janeway and is loving that. (Of course, he's also reading Caddie Woodlawn right now, and claims that is the best book he's ever read.) ;)

[Haiku]

I think it's hogwash that there isn't enough reading material out there for boys. Has anyone ever heard of Harry Potter? Percy Jackson? Encyclopedia Brown? Rufus Moffat? Charlie Bone? Garion? Ziggy (as in the Black Dinosaurs)?

 

I think when people expect that kids/boys will only be interested in reading about boys living right now doing the exact things that boys these days do, then, yeah, maybe it's hard to find good books (although there are certainly enough shallow, uninteresting, formulaic books out there). But imo, that's not what a good book should be. A good book opens windows on new worlds, times, ideas, and experiences. It doesn't replicate them.

 

And my son has no problem reading about girls. I don't think anyone has ever introduced the idea that books about girls are boring.

 

My son is 8. He's not the greatest reader in the world, but we have no problem finding books that interest him. As his reading skills improve, the world of "good books for boys" that he can choose from will only expand.

 

Tara

[Faithr]

Some books that my boys have loved as read alouds (or independent reading):

 

The Great Brain series (gets a bit redundant after a while, but still very enjoyable)

Roald Dahl books (huge hits here)

My Side of the Mountain, Hatchet, Swiss Family Robinson - survival type books

The Prydain Chronicles (have been read over and over again; perennial favorites here)

Swallows and Amazons (one son in particular loved these and went through a solid year of living in this world!)

Redwall books (these get redundant too after a while but the series is so long that you can read several before fatigue sets in, LOL!)

The Hobbit

The Toothpaste Millioniare, The Pushcart War

A Cricket in Times Square

Narnia series

Tin Tin series (light reading on their own)

Asterix series (ditto)

 

And my boys all listened to the Little House books right alongside their sisters and they enjoyed them too. There's a lot of pioneer stuff in there. It is surprising what boys will like sometimes. When my youngest daughter was five I discovered Milly Molly Mandy, which I had not heard of before. I started reading them aloud to her and gradually the whole family, including my husband started listening in. The stories are just plain charming, even though they are mainly about a little girl growing up in a little English village in the 1920s.

[Haiku]

Saying boys don't like books about girls is as stupid as saying girls don't like books about boys.

 

Tara

[Mom-ninja.]

I loathe the word "twaddle." I'd like to hunt down Charlotte Mason's ghost and make her read everything Dav Pilkey ever wrote.

 

They're not expressing an opinion when they say boys don't read enough. They're quoting statistics. When they say boys don't want to read because there's nothing to read about, they're quoting the boys themselves. This is not an imaginary problem. You know what else studies tell us? Letting kids pick their own books is what creates lifelong, capable readers.

 

And Valerie Tripp is someone who has worked in creative ways to get kids reading for many, many years with great results.

 

The problem of finding good "boy books" is, IMHO, overstated. I think there's a bigger problem with teachers and librarians who don't know children's literature or how to connect a child with a book. And the fact that reading instruction in schools is riddled with problems is another whole can of worms feeding into this issue, as is the ways in which we shortchange boys in the classroom. But there is an actual issue. One that can be helped by having more books boys want. I know many people here are skeptical that Captain Underpants can be a "gateway series" to other things, but practicing reading is what increases reading fluency.

 

I'm so sick of this debate on this board. :( We like classics here too. And new books. Nor do I judge my kids if they like something or take books from them.

 

:iagree: especially with the bold part. I do, however, say no to some books. When my ds picked up a book at the library, and on the first page I looked at, the characters were calling each other names like idiot and moron, I made him put it back.

[Haiku]

I think there's a bigger problem with teachers and librarians who don't know children's literature or how to connect a child with a book.

 

And with parents who don't present their kids with a wide range of quality, appealing books. If there is a crisis in regards to boys and reading, it's not because there aren't good books for boys available. It's because no one is paying attention enough to provide boys with better than the latest pop-culture fluff, which would turn me off of reading, too.

 

Tara

[lulubelle]

My boys have really enjoyed some of the books from Girls of Many Lands series that is published by American Girls. From what we have read, it is a very balanced story and makes no difference if the main character is a girl. That being said, it would also be nice to have similar books that have a boy as the main character and could be initially more appealing to boys.

 

When we have a friend in the car, who is a boy, my oldest boy will deny that he likes Little House Books, the "babyish" Magic Tree House, or anything that doesn't seem "cool" or "boyish".

 

 

[Farrar]

And with parents who don't present their kids with a wide range of quality, appealing books. If there is a crisis in regards to boys and reading, it's not because there aren't good books for boys available. It's because no one is paying attention enough to provide boys with better than the latest pop-culture fluff, which would turn me off of reading, too.

 

Tara

 

I think kids need pop culture fluff and quality literature (and the stuff in between). There's some of both out there, but especially for boys, there should be more - of both, in my opinion. There's fluff like Captain Underpants... but when there's not a stepping stone to something better afterward, then fluff reading does amount to less, I think.

 

And I agree that there especially should be more recently produced boy historical fiction and contemporary settings. There's a lot of boy fantasy out there, but even for that, I feel like there's room for more.

[Walking-Iris]

I also agree that this article is just silly. My ds8 has read every Captain Underpants book there is and a couple of the Wimpy Kids, he also has read Ricky Ricotta (which is also by Dav Pilky). Now I'm not overly fond of those books. My main problem is all the misspelled words. I worry that reading the books a lot, then those misspelled words will become a mental memory and kids may start having spelling problems. And so I limit those big time, and I make a point of talking about the humorous reason for the misspelling. (Even though that bothers me too---the implication that boys can't spell.) I also found the Wimpy Kid series to be a bit too mature in the sexual innuendos for an 8 year old.

 

My son is very artsy---and so that's the appeal of those books, the art. He reads a lot of Calvin and Hobbes, Big Nate, Peanuts. Mainly for the art.

 

One "for boys" trend that we're loving is the Guys Read books. He's reading Guys Read 1 right now. Funny Business. It's a collection of short stories by some amazing children's lit authors. We've also read Guys Write for Guys Read, which has autobiography information or other anecdotes written by some amazing male authors.

 

I'm very much impressed with that whole program! :001_smile:

 

Some other books that my 8 year old son has read:

 

James and the Giant Peach and The Magic Finger

Alice in Wonderland (usually considered "girly")

Peter Pan

Magic Tree House series

Charlotte's Web and Trumpet of the Swan

Coraline

Tale of Despereux

 

He also reads collections of myth and folktales and fairy tales on his own. He loves that stuff and doesn't have a sense that Cinderella or Beauty and The Beast are for girls.

 

Saying a boy needs an alternative to American Girls is like saying that girls only like to read American Girls and not what is usually for boys---that sort of gender limiting drives me crazy. Some of the stories in Guys Read are really fun and I would think nothing of giving it to my daughter.

[Haiku]

I think kids need pop culture fluff

 

I don't think they need it at all. I don't think they need candy, either. I don't mind if they have some of it, occasionally, in the context of a regular diet of nutritious foods, but they certainly don't need candy. Quality literature is not a euphemism for "dry, boring, Victorian, hard-to-read" literature any more than green beans (my dd's favorite vegetable) or carrots (my son's favorite vegetable) are euphemisms for "gross food that I only eat when forced to."

 

Tara

[Farrar]

I don't think they need it at all. I don't think they need candy, either. I don't mind if they have some of it, occasionally, in the context of a regular diet of nutritious foods, but they certainly don't need candy. Quality literature is not a euphemism for "dry, boring, Victorian, hard-to-read" literature any more than green beans (my dd's favorite vegetable) or carrots (my son's favorite vegetable) are euphemisms for "gross food that I only eat when forced to."

 

Tara

 

See, my problem is that the food analogy doesn't bear out in measures. Junk food is actually junk. It doesn't help your body in any way. Eating a pile of lettuce and some lean protein is going to be better for your body in every possible way that a peanut butter cup or some lollipops (as much as I wish we lived in the world of Sleeper nutrition... alas). But kids who read fluff actually get better at reading, improve their test scores and are more likely to pick up more books (fluff for many, but non-fluff for some). That's a really different end result.

 

I also think it's a much more subjective thing. With food, yes, we can argue whether some foods are any good - is it worth having dark chocolate for the antioxidants or the like. But with books it's SO much more subjective. I have my opinions about what is fluff and what's not, but others will disagree.

 

I do think kids should have their reading horizons expanded... gently.

[Haiku]

Junk food is actually junk. It doesn't help your body in any way. Eating a pile of lettuce and some lean protein is going to be better for your body in every possible way that a peanut butter cup or some lollipops (as much as I wish we lived in the world of Sleeper nutrition... alas). But kids who read fluff actually get better at reading, improve their test scores and are more likely to pick up more books (fluff for many, but non-fluff for some). That's a really different end result.

 

But that's not the only end result, and those results can absolutely be obtained by reading better-quality books. I was a kid who read a lot of fluff: Sweet Valley High, Girls of Canby Hall, Babysitters Club, etc. I fully believe that it watered down my taste for good books. I see it like tv: tv is a great entertainer and requires no effort. Why, then, put forth the effort to do something more challenging when you can be so passively entertained? I wish my mother had worried more about what I read.

 

Tara

[Faithr]

I agree with you Tara. I think everybody is going to encounter some fluff along the line somewhere and that isn't harmful usually. But reading lots of fluff is not necessary to develop into a good reader and in fact can be harmful. This has had an impact on our local library system. The shelves are full of cheap bestsellers, romances, etc. But they are getting rid of classics because they've not been taken out in so long! What???? Is the public library's job to provide us with mindless entertainment or is it to preserve our literary, intellectual heritage? This is the result, I think, of seeing reading, any kind of reading as somehow virtuous. It is part of the dumbing down of our kids and our society. Yes, what one person considers fluff another may not. There is definitely room for subjective opinions, but there are also certain standards that we can at least aim for without resorting to drivel and fluff to get us started.

[Moniksca]

Some books that my boys have loved as read alouds (or independent reading):

 

The Great Brain series (gets a bit redundant after a while, but still very enjoyable)

Roald Dahl books (huge hits here)

My Side of the Mountain, Hatchet, Swiss Family Robinson - survival type books

The Prydain Chronicles (have been read over and over again; perennial favorites here)

Swallows and Amazons (one son in particular loved these and went through a solid year of living in this world!)

Redwall books (these get redundant too after a while but the series is so long that you can read several before fatigue sets in, LOL!)

The Hobbit

The Toothpaste Millioniare, The Pushcart War

A Cricket in Times Square

Narnia series

Tin Tin series (light reading on their own)

Asterix series (ditto)

 

 

Thanks for the list. Sorry no Little House series here, my ds didn't like it but neither did I. He did enjoy Alice in Wonderland and didn't think it was girly.

[JudoMom]

Honestly?

 

Articles like that make me crazy.

 

I have a boy. I never allowed nonsense like Captain Underpants in our house. And yet, somehow, he still reads like crazy. In fact, he reads much more than my daughter.

 

And you know what? He likes Shakespeare, too. We took him to his first play when he was seven, and he's been going every year since. He reads the plays, too.

 

Argh.

 

Of course boys aren't "bad versions of girls," but it always seems to me that articles like this are saying they somehow can't handle what girls do.

 

I think we way underestimate our guys.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree: with all of it, but especially the bolded.

[Guest]

Agreeing with Tara!

 

If we feed their minds with twaddle why would be expect their minds to be healthy? I am one for letting kids read what appeals to them, especially when one is looking to inspire a reluctant reader. At the same time though I think we would be doing our children a disservice if we do not screen what they read. I pre-read books before giving them to my son and have returned books to the library that I did not agree with or like, even ones I have put on hold myself, seeing them recommended somewhere.

 

There are certain books I am ok with. My son has been reading the Magic Tree House books and I am ok with those. I would also look at a Boy's version of American Girl but certain other series mentioned here I would not give to my son and thankfully they would not appeal to him anyway. On the other hand, like some others have already said, my son does like some books that may be considered girls' books. He is currently reading Charlotte's Web and will be reading Trumpet of the Swan next. He has expressed the desire to move onto the Little House collection after that and honestly, the life of the Ingalls girls and what they experienced in those times has nothing to do with the girly life of today. There are some books I just cannot see as girly, especially considering some family values that can be gained from them. I am ok with some unabridged classics and retellings, mostly because I don't want my son ending up reading twaddle while waiting for him to start the unabridged versions but I am on a search for quality books for him and with him. His input is always important :).

[Farrar]

Reading books you this is fluff isn't "usually" harmful? Like, sometimes it actually rots your brain?

 

When I saw reading Justin Beiber biographies and Captain Underpants helps kids, that's backed up by data that shows that allowing kids to choose their own books and allowing them to read ANYTHING helps reading scores. There is absolutely no data I've ever seen that supports the idea that reading only quality literature is somehow better for your reading ability. And the data *does* suggest that reading what you want is the most key component for kids to read more. Kids doing summer reading who are allowed to pick their own books come out much better on tests than kids who are given classics.

 

I just can't stand the judgement involved. No one is hurt by reading things you deem fluff. And things parents bemoaned as ruining books years ago are often seen as classics now. You don't even have to go *that* far back to see things like Harriet the Spy, which were banned and which parents thought were terrible for kids but which are today regarded as classics of children's literature.

Edited October 29, 2011 by farrarwilliams
i'm in a rotten mood and am trying to tone myself down :(

[Enough]

There is absolutely no data I've ever seen that supports the idea that reading only quality literature is somehow better for your reading ability.

 

I get what you are saying, and think this ^^^ is true.

 

I'd be interested in seeing studies that showed the impact on long-term reading habits of kids who read mainly fluff, or used fluff as a gateway to developing fluency. Do any/some/many/all evolve to the harder stuff?

 

However, I screen (and deny) many of the "fluff" books because while they might be helpful for reading ability, they aren't helpful for promoting the type of behavior and culture that I want my kids to learn. The snark, rude, gross, insulting genre that represents much of the "fluff" out there gets NO respect from me, and I have no qualms about censoring it.

[Joyofsixreboot]

If it hadn't been for Capt. Underpants my ds would have never picked up a book. I'm a big fluff reader. I have no problem with it. Not all kids are interested in reading and have to be coaxed. YMMV