Children's versions of Shakespeare and other adult stories... thoughts?

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Hello,

 

My personal stance is that reading children's versions of adult books is a bad idea- I feel like it "spoils" a lot of surprises and plot twists and turns when a child is finally old enough to read the real version. I know WTM recommends several of them, but I just disagree. However, I am wondering about Shakespeare children's stories. Shakespeare is so hard to understand in the original language that as an adult most of us read parallel versions with modern translations or notes along with the original anyway.

 

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this topic?

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I am generally against them as well, Furthermore, I generally do not want my son to see any movie versions of the classics before he reads them such as The Hobbit.

 

OTOH, for more difficult works such as Shakespeare and Dickens, I think children's versions and movies might make these books more accessible. For example, my ds has seen many versions of The Christmas Carol, yet we still thoroughly enjoyed listening to the unabridged version of Dicken's original Christmas Carol. Also, I recently purchased from Homeschool Buyers Co-op a cartoon film version of Shakespeare with original wording and click on definitions. He has also seen other cartoon versions of Shakespeare and we also have A Children's Shakespeare.

 

I think for more difficult works, these things are generally ok. OTOH, for more accessible, yet still beefy, classics such as The Hobbit I think the originals are better.

[regentrude]

We have Leon Garfield's Shakespeare Stories and like them. My son read many of them just for fun.

My take on Shakespeare is that it is meant to be seen on stage first, not read. Since the plays are very complex and the language archaic, I would recommend even to an adult to read a synopsis of the play before watching it, so that he has a basic idea of the plot. I personally find this very helpful. Garfield serves this purpose well. It would not occur to me to take children to a Shakespeare play without them knowing the story.

[Mergath]

It takes a lot of study to be able to read Shakespeare in the original language and truly understand and enjoy it. If you have a general idea of the plot before you go into one of the plays, it makes it easier to enjoy and appreciate, especially if you're wading in for the first time. Now I can read a first folio without notes, but my first year as a lit major in college, I was all about the plot synopsis at the beginning of each act, lol. It didn't dampen my enjoyment of the plays at all.

[nmoira]

My personal stance is that reading children's versions of adult books is a bad idea- I feel like it "spoils" a lot of surprises and plot twists and turns when a child is finally old enough to read the real version.

 

I'm with you, and there's so much fantastic children's literature out there, spanning all reading/listening levels, it seems ludicrous to read bowdlerized and watered down versions of adult classics, or even worse (IMHO) children's classics.

 

Off my soapbox. :)

 

Myths, legends, epics, folktales, Bible stories, etc. are another story, not only because much comes out of an oral tradition, but because knowledge of these is is necessary even to better appreciate even most children's classics. Shakespeare is my line in the sand, and could go either way. However, I choose to include him with the myths and legends even though the worlds are original, without guilt, because plot is not what makes Shakespeare Shakespeare. So we do retellings, supplemented with well-known excerpts.

 

I agree that plays (not just Shakespeare) should be seen before they're read. DD the Elder went to Midsummer Night's Dream just before Christmas, and she was riveted. I can't imagine her having the same reaction to the text alone (and certainly not at 11).

[Walking-Iris]

It really depends on the quality of the abridged book. Some abridged books are classics in their own right. I really like the Tales From Shakespeare. My older ds will listen to one of those stories, but reading the original play would likely cause snores. They are written to specifically keep the general mood and flow of language. And then they have a knowledge of the story when they are ready to read the original. There are abridged Don Quixote for kids. NO WAY would I attempt to read the original of that to a child. Pinocchio is a kid's book, but we were just struggling to get through it. We've tried several times. Something about it just isn't for us. I found a good abridged based on the original (NOT disney) and that helped. Mary Pope Osbourne's version of The Iliad and Odyssey are good.

 

And as far as adult books for kids? These are just too darn cute and I love watching my 2 year old look at them!!! http://books.google....id=-wbsJX9r7WAC

[Candid]

I'm actually fine with reading younger versions, in my experience, they help prepare students in my view to read harder works later.

 

I want to offer one point of clarity about Shakespeare, he uses modern English just like we do. He does use some archaic words that we no longer use, but for the most part modern English. The reason he is so difficult to understand is the complexity of his vocabulary and his use of metaphor.

 

To help understand this allow me to put sections of Old, Middle and Modern English below

 

 

Old English from Beowulf

 

 

HWÆT, WE GAR-DEna in geardagum,

þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon,

hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon!

oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,

monegum mægþum meodosetla ofteah,

egsode eorlas, syððanærest wearð

feasceaft funden; he þæs frofre gebad,

weox under wolcnum weorðmyndum þah,

oð þæt him æghwylc ymbsittendra

ofer hronrade hyran scolde,

gomban gyldan; þæt wæs god cyning!

Ãæm eafera wæs æfter cenned

geong in geardum, þone God sende

folce to frofre; fyrenðearfe ongeat,

þe hie ær drugon aldorlease

lange hwile; him þæs Liffrea,

wuldres Wealdend woroldare forgeaf,

Beowulf wæs breme --- blæd wide sprang---

Scyldes eafera Scedelandum in.

Swa sceal geong guma gode gewyrcean,

fromum feohgiftumon fæder bearme,

 

Middle English from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales

 

 

WHAN that Aprille with his shoures soote 1

The droghte 2 of Marche hath perced to the roote,

And bathed every veyne in swich 3 licour,

Of which vertu engendred is the flour;

Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth 5

Inspired hath in every holt 4 and heeth

The tendre croppes, 5 and the yonge sonne

Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne, 6

And smale fowles maken melodye,

That slepen al the night with open ye, 10

(So priketh hem nature in hir corages: 7

Than longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,

And palmers for to seken straunge strondes, 8

To ferne halwes, 9 couthe 10 in sondry londes;

And specially, from every shires ende 15

Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,

The holy blisful martir for to seke,

That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seke.

 

Modern English from Shakespeare's Macbeth

 

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time,

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

 

Signifying nothing.

 

Notice that there are no words in this particular section that you don't know the meaning of, but the section still takes some time to take it in.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Hi Candid- I actually took a history of the English Language class in college and Beowulf and Chaucer were exactly the examples given. We had to memorize the openings to both so that we could "hear" the three stages of development. By original language, I just meant... well... Shakespeare's original prose.

[nmoira]

Hi Candid- I actually took a history of the English Language class in college and Beowulf and Chaucer were exactly the examples given. We had to memorize the openings to both so that we could "hear" the three stages of development. By original language, I just meant... well... Shakespeare's original prose.

 

A bit OT, but have you seen this?

 

http://youtu.be/dWe1b9mjjkM

 

Paul Meier and other scholars of the history of the English Language have reconstructed what they believe to be the way in which English words were pronounced during the time of Shakespeare. He's staging a production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" next month in that original pronunciation:

 

“American audiences will hear an accent and style surprisingly like their own in its informality and strong r-colored vowels,†Meier said. “The original pronunciation performance strongly contrasts with the notions of precise and polished delivery created by John Gielgud, Laurence Olivier and their colleagues from the 20th century British theater.â€

[Cosmos]

I'm with you, and there's so much fantastic children's literature out there, spanning all reading/listening levels, it seems ludicrous to read bowdlerized and watered down versions of adult classics, or even worse (IMHO) children's classics.

 

Off my soapbox. :)

 

Myths, legends, epics, folktales, Bible stories, etc. are another story, not only because much comes out of an oral tradition, but because knowledge of these is is necessary even to better appreciate even most children's classics. Shakespeare is my line in the sand, and could go either way. However, I choose to include him with the myths and legends even though the worlds are original, without guilt, because plot is not what makes Shakespeare Shakespeare. So we do retellings, supplemented with well-known excerpts.

 

I agree that plays (not just Shakespeare) should be seen before they're read. DD the Elder went to Midsummer Night's Dream just before Christmas, and she was riveted. I can't imagine her having the same reaction to the text alone (and certainly not at 11).

 

 

This is my stance as well. Children's retellings of myths, folklore, Bible, and similar stories rising from oral tradition. I did also have my ds read a retelling of Canterbury Tales this year.

 

But any classics written in modern English wait until he's able to read or listen to the original.

 

With Shakespeare, we definitely have read synopses of the plays before going to see them, and the various versions written for children are good for that. We've read some by E. Nesbit and some by Charles Lamb. But it's in conjunction with watching a performance of the real thing or, in one case, participating in a group reading. (That was really fun, and I think my ds got even more out of it than some of the performances we've seen.)

[Heidi]

I'm with you! Totally anti-abridged adult classics but pro-children's versions of shakespeare. There are so many wonderful children's classics available. Ambleside Online lists ALL of them.

 

I read A Mid-Summer Night's Dream from Tales from Shakespeare to my kids when they were in K & 1st grade and they absolutely LOVED it. They still haven't seen the play. So I would have to disagree about seeing it first to enjoy. I did make characters and acted them out as we read. I remember my 1st grader rolling on the ground laughing at the mix up of who falls in love with who, and she told the story of Puck's tricks over and over to anyone who would listen to her. :001_wub: Good memories.

[myfunnybunch]

In general, I believe in exposing children to great literature in its original form. But with Shakespeare, the language is so dense and rich and unlike language they experience elsewhere, that reading quality adaptations has been helpful for my children as a preparation for "real" Shakespeare, say before we watched a play or read some of the original language. Last year, with boys in grades 1-3-5, we read through two adaptations (side by side, reading both versions of a particular play before moving on to the next). We watched a few plays in their original language, and we studied some of Shakespeare's poetry. Knowing the story ahead of time helped them to follow along when they lost the language for a bit.

 

I would probably not substitute an adaptation for the original, unless I had K-2 students and limited time and knew that this was the only exposure to Shakespeare they might get during their younger years. I'd rather they be at least somewhat familiar with the stories by the time they get to late elementary and middle school.

 

Cat

[Candid]

A bit OT, but have you seen this?

 

 

Paul Meier and other scholars of the history of the English Language have reconstructed what they believe to be the way in which English words were pronounced during the time of Shakespeare. He's staging a production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" next month in that original pronunciation:

 

“American audiences will hear an accent and style surprisingly like their own in its informality and strong r-colored vowels,†Meier said. “The original pronunciation performance strongly contrasts with the notions of precise and polished delivery created by John Gielgud, Laurence Olivier and their colleagues from the 20th century British theater.â€

 

 

Patrick Stewart talked about this a long time ago when he was first hired to play Captain Picard on Star Trek the Next Generation. In my east coast state there's an isolated section, that scholars will say sounds much like the original Elizabethans.

 

According to other materials I've read, we in the US have had a bunch more vowel sounds than speaker's of the Queen's English.

[Farrar]

I don't think it's ever worth giving kids a poorly written book or graphic novel or letting them see a mediocre movie just for the sake of exposure to a "great" piece of literature. (To be clear, if my kids independently found such a thing at the library and wanted to read it, I don't stand in the way of that either - but I would never give it to them.) There are a lot of such things around - like the "Classic Starts" books. When your shortened version of every single classic in the whole cannon of literature has the exact same number of pages, then that's always a clue something went wrong.

 

On the other hand, we're lucky to have many fine, well-written retellings of classic myths and literature, including Shakespeare. So in that case, I am all for it. Just as I can enjoy reading an interpretation of a story to see the story differently, I think children see things differently and if it's well done, then I'm happy to try it out. I don't think it ruins their potential appreciation later.

[shawthorne44]

I see nothing wrong with the scaled back versions. I think because of the nuances in the language, you need spoilers to grasp most of it.

 

My favorite way to read Shakespeare for the first time is to get a BBC production at the library and an unabridged version meant for children, i.e 40% of the text is explanatory footnotes. Then read a little, watch a little, repeat.

[happypamama]

I am generally against them as well, Furthermore, I generally do not want my son to see any movie versions of the classics before he reads them such as The Hobbit.

 

OTOH, for more difficult works such as Shakespeare and Dickens, I think children's versions and movies might make these books more accessible. For example, my ds has seen many versions of The Christmas Carol, yet we still thoroughly enjoyed listening to the unabridged version of Dicken's original Christmas Carol. Also, I recently purchased from Homeschool Buyers Co-op a cartoon film version of Shakespeare with original wording and click on definitions. He has also seen other cartoon versions of Shakespeare and we also have A Children's Shakespeare.

 

I think for more difficult works, these things are generally ok. OTOH, for more accessible, yet still beefy, classics such as The Hobbit I think the originals are better.

 

 

I generally agree with this. Good versions of Shakespeare for children -- yes. (Though my kids did see the LOTR movies at fairly young ages and before they read the books -- which did help make the books more accessible to them, so that DD plowed through Fellowship at 7. Shoot, the movies made the books more interesting to *me.* :) ) With things like Shakespeare, I feel that a good version for children helps make the basic plot and characters understandable, and then they can appreciate the full version even more.

 

But in general, I prefer to have kids wait until they're old enough for the full book.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I generally agree with this. Good versions of Shakespeare for children -- yes. (Though my kids did see the LOTR movies at fairly young ages and before they read the books -- which did help make the books more accessible to them, so that DD plowed through Fellowship at 7. Shoot, the movies made the books more interesting to *me.* :) ) With things like Shakespeare, I feel that a good version for children helps make the basic plot and characters understandable, and then they can appreciate the full version even more.

 

But in general, I prefer to have kids wait until they're old enough for the full book.

 

That is good to know that the LOTR movies made the books more interesting. I am probably sometimes afraid if ds sees the movie first that he will not be interested in the books. However, I did discover that seeing a movie first (in fact, many times and many versions of the same movie) did not take away our enjoyment of the Christmas Carol book.

[kiwik]

I have a friend who always watches the movies before reading the books so she doesn't feel let down by downs movie. I can see her point. When it is children though I suspect (with obvious exceptions) that if they can't read the book they are not mature enough to watch the movie. The books are written at the level the book was designed for after all.

 

With abridged classics it depends on the skill of the person abridging and a number of other things.

[Mystie]

I'm with you, and there's so much fantastic children's literature out there, spanning all reading/listening levels, it seems ludicrous to read bowdlerized and watered down versions of adult classics, or even worse (IMHO) children's classics.

 

Off my soapbox. :)

 

Myths, legends, epics, folktales, Bible stories, etc. are another story, not only because much comes out of an oral tradition, but because knowledge of these is is necessary even to better appreciate even most children's classics. Shakespeare is my line in the sand, and could go either way. However, I choose to include him with the myths and legends even though the worlds are original, without guilt, because plot is not what makes Shakespeare Shakespeare. So we do retellings, supplemented with well-known excerpts.

 

 

 

I agree. Children's watered-down classic novels are out. But myths and legends -- the stuff children's bedtime stories were always made of -- we do all sorts of adaptions (plus, there's no one "real" source for many of them). I include Shakespeare with that category, particularly because many of his stories were traditional legendary or historic plots to begin with.

 

Some of my favorite children's versions still maintain the feel of the original and don't Disney-fy them at all. Bruce Coville's Shakespeare picture books are great and Rumford's Beowulf is amazing.

 

Even with children's versions I'm picky that they be quality.

[Faithr]

My oldest son hated retellings of Shakespeare. He felt they were all just spoilers, ruining the surprise of a good play! I think the best way to experience Shakespeare is to go see it. Read the little blurb on the program and then watch. You'll understand loads of it just from the acting. Then go home and read the play. I like the No Fear versions. That way if you can't get the original you can read the vastly more pedestrian but much easier to under modern 'translation.' And it makes Shakespeare very accessible. I still remember in high school being so excited that I was finally going to learn about this Shakespeare fellow I had heard so much about. We had to read MacBeth. We didn't get to see it on film (one of those very stiff BBC productions from long ago) until after we'd had to read it. The only help in the text was a few footnotes. I couldn't understand anything and felt so stupid. Here everybody else was raving about this guy and how great he was and I just felt shut out and stupid because I couldn't understand or appreciate him. It took me years to get over that mental block.

[I.Dup.]

I personally do not think that Shakespeare was meant to be read at all, it was meant to be watched! I don't expect myself or my children to read straight Shakespeare but abridged versions and plays/movies to get the story, sure!

[Jane in NC]

I think one should choose children's versions carefully.

 

Garfield's retelling of Shakespeare's plays were a family favorite when my son was young. So were Rosemary Sutcliff's books. When my son was ten, we first read Sutcliff's Beowulf: Dragon Slayer. Then I read Seamus Heaney's version aloud. He often sat next to me and followed the Old English on the left hand side as I read the modern on the right. Knowing the storyline going in was helpful from my perspective.

 

As I said, one has to choose carefully. There is a lot of schlock out there.

 

Here is another issue--consider the Grimm's Fairy Tales. How original do you want to be?

[Susan in TN]

I'm OK with it (good retellings, that is. Not Disney). Primarily because I know how I can get much more out of complex literature after having read a brief summary and/or analysis. I tend to think that if a child has a basic understanding of the plot and characters, they will eventually gain more from the artistic wordplay and clever plot twists of something as complex as Shakespeare, Homer, etc. That may just be how my brain works.

[RockstarMom]

My general feeling is that I am ALL FOR introducing my kids at an early age to the stories in an age appropriate manner so when they come by it again, they'll have some familiarity. Wishbone on PBS? Love it, my 5yo can tell me the basic concepts of several classics. Disney movies? Eh... same idea, I guess, but we usually talk about how the original stories differ. We're not very religious but we read stories from a children's bible because so much literature is based off bible stories, it's important for them to know the basics.

[nmoira]

my 5yo can tell me the basic concepts of several classics

 

But what's the point? :001_smile:

 

My take is that it robs kids of their chance to truly experience a reasonably accessible classic work for the first time (I'm thinking particularly novels here) by spoon feeding them plot elements years before the work is developmentally appropriate.

[I.Dup.]

But what's the point? :001_smile:

 

My take is that it robs kids of their chance to truly experience a reasonably accessible classic work for the first time (I'm thinking particularly novels here) by spoon feeding them plot elements years before the work is developmentally appropriate.

 

I agree about what is the point of a 5yo knowing classic books. But do you really consider reading straight-up Shakespearean plays "reasonably accessible?"

[nmoira]

I agree about what is the point of a 5yo knowing classic books. But do you really consider reading straight-up Shakespearean plays "reasonably accessible?"

 

Shakespeare my line and we could have gone either way, but some people do. Or maybe Don Quixote is my line. It's is another one I've opted to use children's versions; we have three, at various reading levels. And I'm on record as not being dismissive of the idea of abridged Swiss Family Robinson. :tongue_smilie:

 

But Classic Starts and similar series don't stop there, and I simply can't wrap my head around retellings of children's classics (other than an abridged SFR) when one can just wait a couple years to enjoy the real thing.

[justamouse]

I was reading Macbeth to the girls a year ago (they were 10) and their 9 yo brother sat in. He ended up loving Banquo.

 

I'm against abridged versions.

 

A bit OT, but have you seen this?

 

 

Paul Meier and other scholars of the history of the English Language have reconstructed what they believe to be the way in which English words were pronounced during the time of Shakespeare. He's staging a production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" next month in that original pronunciation:

 

“American audiences will hear an accent and style surprisingly like their own in its informality and strong r-colored vowels,†Meier said. “The original pronunciation performance strongly contrasts with the notions of precise and polished delivery created by John Gielgud, Laurence Olivier and their colleagues from the 20th century British theater.â€

 

 

THAT? Was so freakin cool.

 

We tell the real Grimm around here, BUT only because I read The Owl, the Raven and the Dove.

 

The fairy tales collected by the brothers Grimm are among the best known and most widely-read stories in western literature. In recent years commentators such as Bruno Bettelheim have, usually from a psychological perspective, pondered the underlying meaning of the stories, why children are so enthralled by them, and what effect they have on the the best-known tales (Hansel and Gretel, Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty) and shows that the Grimms saw them as Christian fables. Murphy examines the arguments of previous interpreters of the tales, and demonstrates how they missed the Grimms' intention. His own readings of the five so-called "magical" tales reveal them as the beautiful and inspiring "documents of faith" that the Grimms meant them to be.

 

Offering an entirely new perspective on these often-analyzed tales, Murphy's book will appeal to those concerned with the moral and religious education of children, to students and scholars of folk literature and children's literature, and to the many general readers who are captivated by fairy tales and their meanings.

[IsabelC]

I love kids' versions for the exact reason that SWB recommends them: if the kid knows and loves the story already, reading the 'grown-up' version later on won't be a daunting chore. This is routinely done with Bible tales (how many of your kids first encountered Noah's Ark in Hewbrew, or even in KJV language?) so why not other classic literature?

 

Although as has been pointed out, you do need to be very careful to get really good kiddie versions (eg Leon Garfield, Geraldine McCaughrean), rather than bowdlerized/over-dumbed/Disnified ones. There are some pretty atrocious abridgments around!

 

(Also, don't underestimate what kids can understand. Otherwise they might grow into adults who think Chaucer, or even Shakespeare, is incomprehensible.)

[Χά�ων]

DS has language delays and I have found having a modern retelling has really helped him when we read original work. I cannot speak of NT children.

[Candid]

But what's the point? :001_smile:

 

My take is that it robs kids of their chance to truly experience a reasonably accessible classic work for the first time (I'm thinking particularly novels here) by spoon feeding them plot elements years before the work is developmentally appropriate.

 

 

I totally disagree.

 

When I was eleven I read Taylor's Little Pilgrim's Progress I didn't real the adult version until after I was 30, but from that moment on (fifth grade) I always thought of my life as a journey. The book has been tremendously influential on my life because I read it so young. Would I have liked and enjoyed it if I had waited and read it later? Sure. Would I have liked the idea of life as a journey if I had read it later? Sure. Would it have been a key touchstone in how I think and evaluate life? No.

 

Good children's classics or abridgments are tremendously valuable. They don't rob children of something experienced later; they enhance that something later. AND in some cases they give knowledge of a classic that will never be read later. This is all valuable.

[nmoira]

I totally disagree.

 

When I was eleven I read Taylor's Little Pilgrim's Progress I didn't real the adult version until after I was 30, but from that moment on (fifth grade) I always thought of my life as a journey. The book has been tremendously influential on my life because I read it so young. Would I have liked and enjoyed it if I had waited and read it later? Sure. Would I have liked the idea of life as a journey if I had read it later? Sure. Would it have been a key touchstone in how I think and evaluate life? No.

 

Good children's classics or abridgments are tremendously valuable. They don't rob children of something experienced later; they enhance that something later. AND in some cases they give knowledge of a classic that will never be read later. This is all valuable.

 

I did say "reasonably accessible." :) One can also make the argument that familiarly with Pilgrim's Progress is akin in value to that of myths and epics.

 

Other than that, we'll have to agree to "totally" disagree.

[Hunter]

I have always thought of literature as art not English. World Book Encyclopedia lists literature as an art when they break down the educational subjects, and way back in the 90s gave me the courage to go with my gut and teach it as one. I think retellings are primarily a result of people teaching an art as one of the 3R's.

 

Also before there were as many children's books to choose from, parents were trying to keep prying eyes away from the top shelves of the library where innocents would encounter things the parents thought were too racy for them. Older sons were often given the chore of reading excerpts and making up their own retellings for the younger siblings. A sanitized retelling was a welcome volume for such families. Times have changed where the average youngster has cable in their homes now, and sees daily much that is far worse than whatever can be encountered in books that used to be kept on top shelves. I think retellings remain popular for the above reason.

 

Whatever I'm doing curriculum wise, I never give literature a bigger place in the curriculum that I do the other arts, and by the time the skills are done, there is very limited time for any of the arts. So it doesn't really matter what I think at any given time, because there just isn't that much nonfiction being assigned. As for free reading, I was lax with my boys about book choices, as their father was in charge generally about nonschool issues, and I had bigger fish to fry than to try and take control of free reading. With my tutoring students, well...it's not my place to give much input about outside reading. There is so little time for lit in my teaching schedule, that there is no time for many retellings unless that will be their only exposure to the book.

[Mergath]

But what's the point? :001_smile:

 

My take is that it robs kids of their chance to truly experience a reasonably accessible classic work for the first time (I'm thinking particularly novels here) by spoon feeding them plot elements years before the work is developmentally appropriate.

 

Of course, even the books that we as grown-ups read have been dumbed down so that we can understand it. Unless you're reading a facsimile First Folio, the work has been modernized to some extent, with words and letters changed from how it was originally written to make it easier for us to understand. So even us adults need a bit of spoon-feeding when it comes to Early Modern English. ;)

[Candid]

I did say "reasonably accessible." :) One can also make the argument that familiarly with Pilgrim's Progress is akin in value to that of myths and epics.

 

Not really, unless you want to include huge swaths of English literature as myths including Shakespeare, but probably others.

 

 

Other than that, we'll have to agree to "totally" disagree.

 

Well of course you can disagree and have an opinion, but I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning and experience you might have.

 

I've mulled it over and I'm just not sure you are correct. And I think more can be learned from discussing how we reach an opinion than just saying we will agree to disagree.

 

First, let me offer another personal experience. Several years ago, I read Crime and Punishment for the first time. Towards the end when Raskolnikov turns himself in to the detective on his case, I have not been so moved either emotionally or intellectually in a long, long time. And yet I knew from long before I ever picked it up to read it, the trajectory of this book, Raskolnikov kills the old women, eludes capture, turns himself in, and goes to prison. If I had not been aware of the plot, the introduction would certainly tipped me off to every bit of it. And yet I still had that experience.

 

Further, I would argue that it is almost impossible to come to a classic work of literature without almost full knowledge of the details of the plot. Who reads Romeo and Juliet and doesn't know they end up dead? Hamlet?

[Amy in NH]

1. The point of well-written children's versions of the classics is to give children the gist of the story. It is installing a peg to hang their unabridged-original-hat on when they are older.

 

2. As previously noted, children can pick up and ponder some of the deeper meanings from a children's versions of the classics.

 

3. IME, children may recollect a vague remembrance of a story line, but unless they have read the same story over and over again they will not remember specific details when they get older. My eldest son was/is quite well read. He read a lot of chidren's versions of classics, followed TWTM/SOTW, was a good scholar and generally has a great memory. He has read quite a few unabridged classics as a teen. With that background, he doesn't remember many details from books he read prior to 10 years old. His memory of literature details from 11-12 years old is even sketchy. You'll not be spoiling the plot by exposing your kids to quality children's retellings of the classics.

[nmoira]

Not really, unless you want to include huge swaths of English literature as myths including Shakespeare, but probably others.

 

In my other posts in this thread, I've talked about the importance of knowing myths, epics, folktales, religious stories. Some would include Shakespeare, Pilgrim's Progress, Don Quixote, and other seminal works in this group. We each have to draw our own line. My criteria for familiarity vs experience is to a great degree utility, with consideration of reasonable accessibility. Swift, Defoe, Pope, and Fielding are are reasonably accessible given adequate preparation. For our family this means a background of myths, epics, etc. as listed above, and immersion in quality, age/ability appropriate literature. If you want your child to be able to read, say, Austen, start with E. Nesbit, Victorian fairy tales, R.L. Stevenson, and Dickens' Christmas stories. One of my eldest's favourite children's books is The Rose and the Ring... she thinks Thackeray rocks. Exposing children to archaic language and syntax and giving them the background to get the "in jokes" (allusions, etc.) is, IMHO, a better "leg up" in reading classics than by "translating" and diminishing the work.

 

My goal is not to have my kids read "the classics" to say they've done it, but rather to have them want to read good literature, "classic" or not, partially for the sake of enjoyment or fulfillment and the thrill of discovery, of being able to peer into another world that is not always a mirror of our own.

 

Well of course you can disagree and have an opinion, but I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning and experience you might have.

 

I've mulled it over and I'm just not sure you are correct. And I think more can be learned from discussing how we reach an opinion than just saying we will agree to disagree.

 

First, let me offer another personal experience. Several years ago, I read Crime and Punishment for the first time. Towards the end when Raskolnikov turns himself in to the detective on his case, I have not been so moved either emotionally or intellectually in a long, long time. And yet I knew from long before I ever picked it up to read it, the trajectory of this book, Raskolnikov kills the old women, eludes capture, turns himself in, and goes to prison. If I had not been aware of the plot, the introduction would certainly tipped me off to every bit of it. And yet I still had that experience.

 

Further, I would argue that it is almost impossible to come to a classic work of literature without almost full knowledge of the details of the plot. Who reads Romeo and Juliet and doesn't know they end up dead? Hamlet?

 

There will always be exceptions... makes life interesting. :) But that doesn't lend force to the argument that exposing kids to the elements of classic works (again, I'm talking primarily novels) is necessary, helpful, or desirable. There aren't just a handful of retellings, there are dozens if not hundreds, including retellings of children's classics. Yeah, I said this upthread, but I just can't wrap my head around the latter.

 

As strong as my feelings are, I don't think it's a question of right or wrong: I don't call CPS if I see of shelf of Classic Starts in someone's house, or even make mention of it. :D

[nmoira]

Of course, even the books that we as grown-ups read have been dumbed down so that we can understand it. Unless you're reading a facsimile First Folio, the work has been modernized to some extent, with words and letters changed from how it was originally written to make it easier for us to understand. So even us adults need a bit of spoon-feeding when it comes to Early Modern English. ;)

 

True enough, and I'm not going to come out against standardized spelling... well not much anyway. It didn't stop with Daniel Webster though: British children's books are routinely scrubbed of "foreign" words American children might not understand, like budgerigar and blouse.

 

Still, there's something I find almost hypnotic about deciphering unstandardized text that makes part of me curse Webster.

[momto2Cs]

1. The point of well-written children's versions of the classics is to give children the gist of the story. It is installing a peg to hang their unabridged-original-hat on when they are older.

 

2. As previously noted, children can pick up and ponder some of the deeper meanings from a children's versions of the classics.

 

3. IME, children may recollect a vague remembrance of a story line, but unless they have read the same story over and over again they will not remember specific details when they get older. My eldest son was/is quite well read. He read a lot of chidren's versions of classics, followed TWTM/SOTW, was a good scholar and generally has a great memory. He has read quite a few unabridged classics as a teen. With that background, he doesn't remember many details from books he read prior to 10 years old. His memory of literature details from 11-12 years old is even sketchy. You'll not be spoiling the plot by exposing your kids to quality children's retellings of the classics.

 

I agree. I do use [higher quality] children's retellings of certain books/stories, such as The Knights of the Faerie Queene as an introduction to Spenser, or Black Ships Before Troy as an introduction to The Odyssey. I have not seen this rob my children of an appreciation for "the real thing" when we do read it later down the line. It allows them to appreciate the story line, which in turn allows them to understand the actual classic version more deeply.

 

I am working on my MA in English. At the moment, I am taking an "Advanced" Shakespeare class, and we are studying four plays this semester. My professor actually suggested that we watch (good) movie adaptations of the plays, either before or during reading, to give us a sense of the flow of the play. I think that sharing a good children's version of a story falls along those lines.

[nmoira]

I agree. I do use [higher quality] children's retellings of certain books/stories, such as The Knights of the Faerie Queene as an introduction to Spenser, or Black Ships Before Troy as an introduction to The Odyssey. I have not seen this rob my children of an appreciation for "the real thing" when we do read it later down the line. It allows them to appreciate the story line, which in turn allows them to understand the actual classic version more deeply.

 

Just to clarify, I said rob them of a chance to experience a work in its entirety for the first time. If you already know the plot before you read a book, you're not experiencing it in its entirety for the first time. I was also referring specifically to more accessible works, and primarily novels, including children's books.

 

Nobody is saying The Iliad shouldn't be experienced except in poetic Greek, or even in full-blown translation. The examples being cited to support the idea that retellings are "good" are those most of us, even hard-liners would agree with: Homer, epics, myths, fairy/folk tales, religious stories, etc. It's a bit of a straw man because Bunyan (or Spenser) is a far cry from a retelling of Dickens or The Wind in the Willows. Most dumbed down classic books are of perfectly accessible works, including works of children's literature. Might they be of value to children with learning disabilities, or children not being educated by parents who place value on literature and may not have the same exposure to language and ideas as many of "our" kids? I'm willing to say yes. But this is a classical education board, and I'm willing to make the assumption that most here place high value on preparing their children to read classic works. :)

[momto2Cs]

 

Just to clarify, I said rob them of a chance to experience a work in its entirety for the first time. If you already know the plot before you read a book, you're not experiencing it in its entirety for the first time. I was also referring specifically to more accessible works, and primarily novels, including children's books.

 

Nobody is saying The Iliad shouldn't be experienced except in poetic Greek, or even in full-blown translation. The examples being cited to support the idea that retellings are "good" are those most of us, even hard-liners would agree with: Homer, epics, myths, fairy/folk tales, religious stories, etc. It's a bit of a straw man because Bunyan (or Spencer) is a far cry from a retelling Dickens or The Wind in the Willows. Most dumbed down classic books are of perfectly accessible works, including works of children's literature. Might they be of value to children with learning disabilities, or children not being educated by parents who place value on literature and may not have the same exposure to language and ideas as many of "our" kids? I'm willing to say yes. But this is a classical education board, and I'm willing to make the assumption that most here place high value on preparing their children to read classic works. :)

 

Thanks for clarifying. I did perhaps misunderstand a little, and my post was primarily in reference to childrens' versions of adult literature.

 

I do absolutely agree with your stance on dumbed-down versions of children's literature. I personally can't imagine reading a non-classic version of The Wind in the Willows. I have purposefully held off on books like Tom Sawyer because I want them to read "the real thing", not a Classic Starts version. We read real versions of books like The Secret Garden, Around the World in 80 Days, A Christmas Carol, etc.

[Candid]

Just to clarify, I said rob them of a chance to experience a work in its entirety for the first time. If you already know the plot before you read a book, you're not experiencing it in its entirety for the first time. I was also referring specifically to more accessible works, and primarily novels, including children's books.

 

Nobody is saying The Iliad shouldn't be experienced except in poetic Greek, or even in full-blown translation. The examples being cited to support the idea that retellings are "good" are those most of us, even hard-liners would agree with: Homer, epics, myths, fairy/folk tales, religious stories, etc. It's a bit of a straw man because Bunyan (or Spencer) is a far cry from a retelling of Dickens or The Wind in the Willows. Most dumbed down classic books are of perfectly accessible works, including works of children's literature. Might they be of value to children with learning disabilities, or children not being educated by parents who place value on literature and may not have the same exposure to language and ideas as many of "our" kids? I'm willing to say yes. But this is a classical education board, and I'm willing to make the assumption that most here place high value on preparing their children to read classic works. :)

For the record, I think I understood the OP to mean adult works not children's works like Willows.

 

I understand what you are saying, well maybe except the part where you say Dickens is accessible. I would say, that is mostly true for older children, but a grade school child reading a retelling of Oliver Twist would be fine in my book. I find that some Dickens can be just as daunting as Pilgrim's Progress which I think is pretty straight forward (A Christmas Carol is pretty easy and even a late grade school student could tackle it, but other novels would be best saved for an older child).

 

I certainly find it silly to have rewrites of true children's books like Willows. Just wait until they are older or read the book out loud to younger children. .

 

However, I don't think in reading what you've written that you have any experience of a children's version of an adult work doing anything negative to a child if they read it when they are too young for the original. And as I illustrate above reading a children's version of an adult work can give that work lasting fidelity, and knowledge of the plot won't destroy the work or reading the real work for a person later on. So in my view no harm done.

 

And the truth of the matter is that a person can't read everything so having read some adult works as children's version as a child will give them cultural knowledge and possibly help them as they are older to select other works they wish to read.

[Mergath]

 

 

Still, there's something I find almost hypnotic about deciphering unstandardized text that makes part of me curse Webster.

 

Same here.

[nmoira]

For the record, I think I understood the OP to mean adult works not children's works like Willows.

 

I understand what you are saying, well maybe except the part where you say Dickens is accessible. I would say, that is mostly true for older children, but a grade school child reading a retelling of Oliver Twist would be fine in my book. I find that some Dickens can be just as daunting as Pilgrim's Progress which I think is pretty straight forward (A Christmas Carol is pretty easy and even a late grade school student could tackle it, but other novels would be best saved for an older child).

 

But that's part of my point: wait until the child is ready for the original work. One of the arguments for the use of Classic Starts type books is that familiarity with the story will make the work accessible later on, or less of a "chore." I'm in favour of using age/ability appropriate literature to build up an understanding of language, syntax, and convention of literary times gone by rather than dumbed down versions that usually leave out these elements. It's a far richer experience. I firmly believe that allowing children to learn the language of the classics (in the sense above) will aid them more in comprehension and appreciation than knowing the plot points years before, something that robs children/teens/adults of the chance to discover the whole work when they are ready.

[kubiac]

As a former kid, I wouldn't trade my "children's version" exposure to the classics for anything.

 

I had a book by Bernard Miles called Favorite Tales from Shakespeare that I read the covers off of. Years later, as I was studying Shakespeare at Stanford, I found the images and story points from that version invaluable as a basis from which to experience the language and symbolic nuance of the plays. I knew enough about Malvolio and Nick Bottom and Iago that I could skip the basic deciphering element of reading and dive into the literary analysis.

 

I only wish I'd had more wonderful classic children's editions available to me when I was younger! As a rule, they provided a tremendous informational foundation on which to build a deeper long-term understanding of the works.

 

Now, all that said, I find Disney versions of classic tales almost toxic and I'm hoping to sequester my kids from them as long as possible. (Apologies to all the Disney partisans out there; I know that company's products have different meanings to different people.)

[misty.warden]

While I see the theory of children's versions of adult books as a good thing, I don't think in practice it's what I would do. There are so many children's books out there that I don't see the need to read the same book in varying levels of "difficulty" instead of different books every year at the appropriate level. A child raised on low quality books might balk at Tom Sawyer or Chaucer, but gradual training of appreciation for well written books along with the maturity needed to understand the point of the works can make a huge difference. I might be biased, my experiences with abridged books (they left out WHAAT??) and children's versions (FTR, Gulliver did not spit in the queen's chamber to put out the fire...) were less than satisfactory.

[Joker]

We've always let our dds read the original versions even if they were too young to get it all. Oldest has stated since she was about 9 years old that her favorite book is Animal Farm. She rereads it every year and learns more every time. At this moment in her Honors English class they are reading Julius Caesar. She's ok with it because she's read a bit of Shakespeare before and the language doesn't intimidate her. I think the only abridged version of a book we've ever let them read was Little Women (and I think that was only because they read the version I still had from when I was young).