Thoughts on Classic Starts?

[taffnus]

OK...I'm undecided...is it better to read an abridged classic younger or wait for the original later?

 

I have a dd8 and I'm considering Little Women Classic Starts. Do you think children who read the abridged will actually want to read the original later? I don't think I would have.

[nmoira]

I loathe retellings and "child-friendly" abridgements of reasonably accessible works, and strenuously object to the notion that we should spoon-feed classics to children so they'll be "able to understand the plot" when they are later exposed to the original work. Bosh! If a classic deserves its status, why should we rob our our children of a chance to experience it in its totality (ETA: either as a read-aloud or independent read) for the first time?

 

Retellings are fine for epics, religious stories and mythology, for folktales and the like, works which are either inaccessible in their original form (if there even exists but one accepted "original" version) and for which knowledge of the story itself is more important than the telling. These works represent our cultural underpinnings and familiarity with the stories is essential to understand both children's and adult literature. Our family's line falls somewhere in the early 17 century, and I'll admit to owning several children's retellings of Don Quixote. :tongue_smilie:

Edited December 5, 2011 by nmoira
errant apostrophe

[asmall]

:iagree:

When you read a classic book that has been altered, it is just not the same after.

AL

[TracyP]

I didn't vote because I would choose 2 and 3 as good options. I asked almost the same question when my dd read (and fell in love with) Black Beauty last year. I wondered if she would have been nearly as interested in the original if I had given her a retelling first. The responses I got confirmed my gut feeling. I wholeheartedly agree with nmoira.

[taffnus]

You are all confirming my gut thought. My dd has the ability to read some of the books now, just not the endurance. I'll begin to put them in the pile of optional readers but will not introduce the abridged versions. Thanks.

[Joyofsixreboot]

While philosophically I would be behind reading the original for my kids that pretty much killed their desire to be read to. My kids like accessible. They like understandable. If it's not they tune out. If I can find abridged with pictures even better. I'm raising philistines but it is what it is.

[lmrich]

It depends! Red Badge of Courage we read as an abridged and liked it. However, child friendly classics should be read by or to the children. I am thinking Heidi, Pollyanna, The Jungle Book, Alice in Wonderland etc... Oliver Twist might fall into the category of abridged because it is so dark in places. And I would add only for 2nd or 3rd graders. We used Classic Starts so that the younger one could read what the older was reading. I used to have my kids read a classic on their own and then I would read it aloud or we would listen together to it and discuss it. The younger one wanted to be included.

[Crimson Wife]

I couldn't vote. I loathe the dumbed-down Classic Starts books but there are a number of high-quality children's versions that I use. Geraldine McCaughrean, Padraic Colum, Rosemary Sutcliff, the d'Aulaires, Charles & Mary Lamb, and so on have written some wonderful re-tellings that are age-appropriate introductions to the classics.

[nmoira]

 

While philosophically I would be behind reading the original for my kids that pretty much killed their desire to be read to. My kids like accessible. They like understandable. If it's not they tune out. If I can find abridged with pictures even better. I'm raising philistines but it is what it is.

FWIW, I wouldn't accuse of of raising Philistines (a people who in any case were probably not deserving of the epithet themselves), but I'd argue that we should be kids should be reading and hearing original works that are age appropriate and accessible. My 7yo is enjoying hearing the likes of Laura Ingalls Wilder, Edward Eager and E. Nesbit, but since her eyes would glaze over at Little Women, I don't go there. There exists a wealth of wonderful, age and ability appropriate works out there, without our having to turn to dumbed-down "classics." I simply cannot imagine on what basis such a diminished "work" would be considered preferable to rich, unadulterated, accessible literature?

[Rosie_0801]

Does it matter if they don't understand?

 

Ok, that sounds like a stupid question, when I put it like that. However I have been reading 'Tarka the Otter' to my speech delayed daughter, while she does a puzzle or colours in. I know she doesn't understand it all, because I don't understand it all! I'm not English, so many of the nouns relating to terrain and wildlife are foreign to me. We're both enjoying it anyway.

 

Perhaps when she's older and more verbal, it'll bother her. Or maybe the setting, me reading while she works or an audiobook in the car instead of sitting and watching is the difference?

 

Rosie

[nmoira]

Does it matter if they don't understand?

 

Ok, that sounds like a stupid question, when I put it like that. However I have been reading 'Tarka the Otter' to my speech delayed daughter, while she does a puzzle or colours in. I know she doesn't understand it all, because I don't understand it all! I'm not English, so many of the nouns relating to terrain and wildlife are foreign to me. We're both enjoying it anyway.

,

Perhaps when she's older and more verbal, it'll bother her. Or maybe the setting, me reading while she works or an audiobook in the car instead of sitting and watching is the difference?

 

Rosie

I don't think so, at least if they understand enough to follow along. I've been surprised at how much my youngest has picked up from her elder sister's read alouds. "Accessible" doesn't imply complete understanding. That's how we learn new things. A child need not know exactly what a 'weir' is to intuit from a story that can form some kind of barrier to a river otter (is Tarka a river otter?).

[Joyofsixreboot]

FWIW, I wouldn't accuse of of raising Philistines (a people who in any case were probably not deserving of the epithet themselves), but I'd argue that we should be kids should be reading and hearing original works that are age appropriate and accessible. My 7yo is enjoying hearing the likes of Laura Ingalls Wilder, Edward Eager and E. Nesbit, but since her eyes would glaze over at Little Women, I don't go there. There exists a wealth of wonderful, age and ability appropriate works out there, without our having to turn to dumbed-down "classics." I simply cannot imagine on what basis such a diminished "work" would be considered preferable to rich, unadulterated, accessible literature?

 

Ok, shouldn't besmirch the Philistines:D. I have tried Wilder, Nesbit, even good old fairy tales. For my 8 yo (not to mention the 4yo) it is as if their brains immediately turn off. They bicker, whine, pick at their nails. They have no recollection and cry if I say it's time to read. I can get them to sit still barely if there are pictures. Some of my older kids were that way too. About 5th grade they suddenly start reading for pleasure on their own.

[Karen in CO]

I loathe retellings and "child-friendly" abridgements of reasonably accessible works, and strenuously object to the notion that we should spoon-feed classics to children so they'll be "able to understand the plot" when they are later exposed to the original work. Bosh! If a classic deserves its status, why should we rob our our children of a chance to experience it in its totality (ETA: either as a read-aloud or independent read) for the first time?

 

Retellings are fine for epics, religious stories and mythology, for folktales and the like, works which are either inaccessible in their original form (if there even exists but one accepted "original" version) and for which knowledge of the story itself is more important than the telling. These works represent our cultural underpinnings and familiarity with the stories is essential to understand both children's and adult literature. Our family's line falls somewhere in the early 17 century, and I'll admit to owning several children's retellings of Don Quixote. :tongue_smilie:

:iagree: But I don't have Don Quixote retellings. I will admit to children's versions of Shakespeare plays - especially Coville's illustrated ones. I love those.

[Mrs_JWM]

:iagree: But I don't have Don Quixote retellings. I will admit to children's versions of Shakespeare plays - especially Coville's illustrated ones. I love those.

 

Bruce Coville is my neighbor - I pass his house on my walk to the library each week! My daughter loved his version of A Midsummer Night's Dream and then we saw it live. So fun!

 

We're going to read the Baldwin version of Don Quixote this week and listen to Strauss during the appropriate chapters. It's times like this when I'm all smug about homeschooling - KIDDING! ;)

 

I always stall out when I read The Well-educated Mind because I can't get into the full version of Don Quixote.

 

My point in this ramble-fest is that I think abridged versions are okay under some circumstances. We read an abridged picture book of Oliver Twist last week, and it was the perfect introduction to Dickens. Then today, I borrowed the audiobook version of Five Children and It and was appalled to find it was abridged. Why would they do that?!! If an abridged version tries to pass itself off as "almost the same" as the original, then I don't think kids are likely to pick it up again later, especially when it's a younger classic, like Heidi orLittle Women. If it's a picture book read as an intro. to a child who won't read the full version for quite a few years, then I think it's a perfectly appropriate grammar- or early logic-stage thing to do.

[lulubelle]

TWTM has them on an extended list for books to read during history. I see nothing wrong with them and my son has enjoyed several from the list so far.

[Farrar]

I couldn't vote. I loathe the dumbed-down Classic Starts books but there are a number of high-quality children's versions that I use. Geraldine McCaughrean, Padraic Colum, Rosemary Sutcliff, the d'Aulaires, Charles & Mary Lamb, and so on have written some wonderful re-tellings that are age-appropriate introductions to the classics.

 

:iagree: Though I did vote - when possible, I think it's great to read aloud the original first. You can do that for some things - especially children's classics. But there's a big difference between a quality retelling and an abridged hack job like Classic Starts. I don't think the Classic Starts hurt kids, but I certainly wouldn't suggest them.

[golfcartmama]

I don't use all abridged versions, but for my ds who had a hard time learning to read and still struggles some but is on grade level, they've been great. He has really enjoyed Treasure Island, Tale of Two Cities, Three Musketeers, and more in the Great Illustrated Classics abridged versions. I still do some as read aloud in their 'original' state (like Christmas Carol!), but I don't have the time to read them all and if I wait I might miss the opportunity to expose him to great stories---especially when all of his friends are reading Captain Underpants and Diary of a Wimpy Kid.