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

[Haiku]

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.

 

Exactly. Reading is about more than gaining fluency. It's about entertainment, education, values, culture, family culture, and much more. I feel that same way about tv shows. My kids can sit through a two-hour documentary about some history topic because they have been raised to watch that kind of stuff. Kids I know who watch a steady diet of Disney Channel drivel can't/don't. Call it judgment or snobbery or what-have-you, but I value the fact that my kids enjoy more intellectual books and shows. There are plenty of books out there that are entertaining as well as educational and that promote values I wish to instill in my kids, so I don't have to resort to fluff for my kids to enjoy reading. I'm not sure why people have the idea that fluff books are inherently more appealing. My kids, who have been raised on quality books, read some fluff, but for the most part they find it uninteresting.

 

My son is NOT a strong reader. I just started Fast Track (Dancing Bears) to help bring him up to speed. I'm still able to find plenty to interest him without introducing Captain Underpants and the like. I consider myself a censor-er of my kids' reading materials but, honestly, there have only been a handful of books I've vetoed. When I'm at the library with my kids, I do help guide them toward what I consider quality books. I won't veto something that's fluffy just for being fluffy, but I will veto crude humor, grammatical nightmares, and rude, snotty kids.

 

I'm proud that my kids enjoy quality books. I don't think I should be ashamed to say so. I'm not casting judgment on others ... I just choose differently for my kids, and I think that allowing kids to choose their own materials doesn't mean they have to be provided with junk.

 

Tara

[Mystie]

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.

 

 

I think we way underestimate our guys.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[Mystie]

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

 

:iagree:

 

What kids read is what they will imitate. No gross, crude, or rude fluff here, though I don't exclude all fluff.

[bnrmom]

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.

 

I completely agree. My older son learned to read with Calvin and Hobbes, adored Captain Underpants (although he has since moved on) and devoured the Diary of a Wimpy Kid series. He also loves Charlotte's Web, Road Dahl, poetry, etc.

 

I am a voracious reader, and today I choose to read mainly high quality literature (with the exception of People magazine when on an airplane :tongue_smilie:). But I remember being obsessed with Archie comics - couldn't get enough of them. I also went through a whole pre-teen fiction phase (definitely fluff), bought every issue of Tiger Beat, and then moved on to the truly awful bad romance and V.C. Andrews type novels as a teenager.

 

If I don't like I a book, I won't read it to my kids, but they are welcome to read it on their own. For instance, I hate the Bad Kitty books. I don't know why, but they just really rub me the wrong way. So if they pick that out at bedtime, I tell them to try again. But they are welcome to read it on their own anytime they desire.

 

I cannot imagine restricting what my children are allowed to read any more than I can imagine having someone else restrict what I can read.

[Faithr]

For what it's worth, I very, very rarely dictate to my kids what they can read. However, I do think that as a result of reading late (at age 9ish) and being exposed to lots of wonderful, rich read alouds, they have discriminating tastes. I have one son who did read Diary of a Wimpy Kid and decided it was stupid. My daughter read the first book of Twilight and said, meh! Why read that when you can be reading Jane Austen? So very little of the fluff is here, simply because it does not appeal.

 

And I guess I have a broader definition of what's acceptable. Calvin and Hobbes is wonderfully clever. That isn't in the same category at all to me as Captain Underpants (which seems to have become the symbol of all that is wrong with children's junk series books, at least in this thread!).

 

So I do agree with Farrar that fluff (or drivel) will happen. But I guess I don't put much stock in 'studies'. I'm old, I've seen studies that prove ANYTHING. And I also don't put much store in reading scores either. I have all sorts of problems with trying to evaluate students abilities according to their ability to take canned tests. One of the many reasons I choose to homeschool.

 

And I also think as with many others, that children are impressionable and what you surround them with will effect what they think, what appeals to them, what they value. Just like with anything else in life, food, TV, etc. And I just don't buy into the fact that we are somehow doing our children a service to fixate on getting them reading at a very early age and then filling the time before they are capable of taking in good literature with all sorts of questionable and poorly written junk because 'at least they are reading.' I think it makes an assumption about their intelligence and exposes our rather fear-based expectations of them: Children are dumb and need to be lured to do things like read the good stuff. And: It doesn't matter what you read, just as long as you read which will somehow result in greater success in life.

 

I do know people who never moved beyond reading trashy stuff. I think there is a lot of nasty stuff out there. Maybe it doesn't effect them. Maybe somehow they compartmentalize everything and reading that sort of stuff doesn't filter into the rest of their life. So be it. I don't seem to have that capability But even so reading habits like that aren't ideal. And frankly I do think it is harmful because often they are perpetuating their own ignorance, God love em! But as a parent, I"m talking about my own children and my responsibility in educating them. I want them to be broader than that. That's what I aim for. I mean what is the whole reason we choose to educate classically? Are we all snobs and full of judgment because we want the best for our kids?

 

Perhaps the difference is our goals for our kids. I'm coming from a religious perspective. I want my kids to grow in what I understand to be real virtue. I want the Good, the Beautiful and the True. Life is too precious of a gift to fritter away on junk. Junk happens, we are surrounded by it in our society. It is pushed upon us, but tht doesn't mean it is good or necessary. The best that can said for it is that it might be okay as long as you don't expose yourself to too much of it.

[Guest]

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.

 

Exactly. Reading is about more than gaining fluency. It's about entertainment, education, values, culture, family culture, and much more. I feel that same way about tv shows. My kids can sit through a two-hour documentary about some history topic because they have been raised to watch that kind of stuff. Kids I know who watch a steady diet of Disney Channel drivel can't/don't. Call it judgment or snobbery or what-have-you, but I value the fact that my kids enjoy more intellectual books and shows. There are plenty of books out there that are entertaining as well as educational and that promote values I wish to instill in my kids, so I don't have to resort to fluff for my kids to enjoy reading. I'm not sure why people have the idea that fluff books are inherently more appealing. My kids, who have been raised on quality books, read some fluff, but for the most part they find it uninteresting.

 

My son is NOT a strong reader. I just started Fast Track (Dancing Bears) to help bring him up to speed. I'm still able to find plenty to interest him without introducing Captain Underpants and the like. I consider myself a censor-er of my kids' reading materials but, honestly, there have only been a handful of books I've vetoed. When I'm at the library with my kids, I do help guide them toward what I consider quality books. I won't veto something that's fluffy just for being fluffy, but I will veto crude humor, grammatical nightmares, and rude, snotty kids.

 

I'm proud that my kids enjoy quality books. I don't think I should be ashamed to say so. I'm not casting judgment on others ... I just choose differently for my kids, and I think that allowing kids to choose their own materials doesn't mean they have to be provided with junk.

 

Tara

 

:iagree:Well said! This is where I am at also. I don't pass judgement on others for what they choose for their children but for my kiddo, we do screen what he reads and it has not been difficult here either because, as has been mentioned in the posts I quoted, we exclude books that promote behaviors that we do not allow in our home anyway. Telling a child not to be rude or gross but then having them read books that promote such behaviors would make it difficult to maintain a level of standards in certain areas. My son questions everything, especially these days, and he sees right through double standards and will call us on it.

 

I screen books for sending the wrong messages also. I always have with RA's and even more so now that my son reads on his own time too. The other day I returned a book that had almost all five star reviews (16 of them). It is a sequel to a book that has 57 reviews with a five star overall rating. After reading this book I decided that there were undertones that did not promote adversity/ being different, but instead showed that those that are different should hide from this "cruel world". While there are those that can be cruel, just like in every other generation, our world has come a long way when it comes to recognizing and accepting and even celebrating differences (disabilities, color etc.). I was not about to let my son read a book that I felt was telling him that those that are different need to hide from the world, lest they become targets. This was not a book my son picked. It was a book someone I know mentioned (although she mentioned the original and we accidentally ended up getting one of the sequels but that appears to be the theme of this small series anyway). He still wanted to know why I was returning it and I had to explain to him that some books give messages we do not agree with and we do not need to read it at this time. I told him that being different is what makes all of us special and that this book did not show that.

 

I am not mentioning what book it is because it was a decision I made for my family and my decisions for my family should not and need not impact others that may consider this book. What each of us gets from a book will not always be the same. Anyway, my child at this age is not ready to scrutinize messages passed onto him from what may be an author's agenda or lack of better judgement. Until he is, I am and will be screening for things like that as well. My choice, for my family :)!

 

As for fluff, my intention was not to insinuate that it is somehow harmful for their mind. I think it was my post that may have given that impression so I felt the need to touch on that. I do strongly feel that certain behaviors are made to appear normal in kids' minds and when that is what a book, TV show, whatever, is bringing across, eventually it will become normal in a child's mind at this age. This was what I meant. This may be ok with some but in our home it is not so I screen for that.

 

I do allow certain books that perhaps others would not in their home. I am advocating for the parents right to screen their kids' books :D. That's all I am saying here...

[Dmmetler]

I did a research paper in grad school on reluctant readers and "Gateway" reading. That is-these were kids, usually boys, in the middle school age range, who were on or near grade level in reading and had no known disabilities related to reading, but who did not regularly engage in sustained reading by choice, and struggled with sustained reading as part of school assignments. They'd made it through elementary school, where typically they only had to read the occasional story or book fragment, but when they got to classes where they actually had to read and follow a novel, they couldn't do it.

 

When these kids were given permission to read based on their interests, and had someone guiding them to the next step within those interests, it was possible to, say, move a Star Trek TV loving kid to Star Trek related non-fiction magazine articles to Diane Duane's Star trek tie-in novels to Isaac Asimov or Ray Bradbury, all within a genre, but gradually getting more literary, and building up stamina so they could handle the school-related reading. Same with comic book readers or athletes. If the child had the skills, you COULD get them to eventually enjoy reading, and to the point where they were able to and willing to sit down with a book that actually had more words than pictures and a sustained plot line.

 

When I was a public school music teacher, I had a deal with all my students. Any book they wanted me to read, I'd read and discuss with them, in writing. I read more Goosebumps, Animorphs, and Babysitter's Club that way (and no, I don't have any of those three series in my house for DD)-but it also let me, after we'd read and talked about the book back and forth, the "in" to suggest a book from my personal collection that they might like-and to continue the dialogue. Not many kids took me up on it each year, but I got to see children blossom into readers and go from reading, say, "Farmer Boy" with me to getting the rest of the books from the school library.

 

 

I'm guessing that the parents on this board aren't going to let a child get to the point the reluctant readers I was working with were at-these were kids who had gotten by, for years, with reading only what was required for the minimums at school. On this board, the "minimum" bar tends to be set a lot higher :).

Edited October 30, 2011 by dmmetler

[Haiku]

I do strongly feel that certain behaviors are made to appear normal in kids' minds and when that is what a book, TV show, whatever, is bringing across, eventually it will become normal in a child's mind at this age.

 

:iagree: And I see it in my 17 year old. She watches more tv than I am personally comfortable with, but as she has gotten older our restrictions have lessened. She watches a lot of tv series that she finds on Netflix, much of which makes me cringe. She has also recently taken to grumbling that her life is boring and has spent a lot of time trying to find a way to make her life more "exciting." We have had several conversations about this and it became apparent that dd felt her life is unexciting because it's not like what she sees portrayed on the teen shows she watches. I explained to dd that real life is not lived in sound bites, dramatic lighting, clever camera cut-aways, and witticisms, and that if she holds her life to that standard, it will always fall short. I told her that if someone made a tv show about a real, average teenager's life, no one would watch it because it wouldn't be non-stop action, adventure, and drama. It would be a lot of sitting in class, doing homework, and working a minimum-wage job. But I understand how she feels, because I felt the same way when I was her age. TV shows have definitely impacted her view of what life should be. It did for me too, when I was young. So did books. Media can create expectations, normalize behaviors, and influence values in powerful ways.

 

My younger kids watch tv and read fluff. However, they don't watch tween sitcoms or the like and they don't read what my father would refer to as rude, crude, and obnoxious books. They don't read books where the kids are mean and snotty. They DO read and love Calvin and Hobbes, and when my ds8 recently bought a fedora (in which he looks adorable!!), he told me he needed to find a street corner to hang out on, and he illustrated by leaning against the doorframe. When I asked what he was going to do on the street corner, he said, "Meet girls." I asked, "Where did you hear about that??" and he answered, "From Calvin and Hobbes." I find this example innocuous and amusing (I guess he got the fedora idea from Calvin's detective alter ego), but to me it serves to underscore the point that media is powerful, powerful, powerful. The circumstances of my oldest dd's life that drew her toward what I consider to be too much television watching (and which prompted me to allow it) won't be replicated in my younger kids' lives, but I will say that I learned my lesson (or rather, my hypothesis about tv was confirmed) and my younger kids will stick to non-sitcom/teen-drama viewing and quality books. I don't see this a sheltering them; I see it as allowing them an environment that gives them a broader view of what's possible.

 

FWIW, my dh takes the kids to the comic book shop every month and buys them comic books. They are currently working themselves, year-by-year, through the entire Peanuts comic strip in treasury form. My ds has been known to read Star Wars novelizations and my dd to read Puppy Place formula books. I just don't see them as essential or as lead-ins to better books. For us, they are the candy of our regular reading diet.

 

Sorry for the novel.

 

Tara

[Michele B]

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.

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

As a lifelong reader, I still have a period of adjustment when I come off an Agatha Christie kick and then try to read Faulkner, Hardy or the Iliad. I can do it because I want to do it and because I have acquired those reading skills (even if I have to polish them a bit). In my personal experience inside my own head ;) there is a difference between reading non-challenging writing and challenging writing. It took me seven tries to get through the Silmarilion - as an adult - an adult who loves Faulkner! ;) Without motivation and encouragement, children are not magically going to step from non-challenging books to challenging books just because reading is reading.

 

If your children have done so, that's great, really! :), but be careful before you promote that as a "truth universally accepted." I don't know about the reading studies and test scores mentioned above. That's great if they are true, but I see kids that haven't moved on, and I have friends from my own school days who never moved on from books that have Fabio on the cover. :tongue_smilie: And I'm always a bit skeptical about statistics anyway - maybe because I always seem to fall outside of them. ;)

Edited October 30, 2011 by Michele B

[Michele B]

hhhmmmmm... I've been reading about the claim that children who choose their books read more and do better on tests. It does not appear to be quite that simple. I have read several reports that caution teachers and parents to monitor the books the children choose from. The studies I have seen emphasize appropriate reading level for the "free-choice" books. The reports caution against levels too easy as well as too difficult.