Big Readers Forum Index

The free forums are now under new ownership, a full announcement will be made shortly

Children's books: then and now
Page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Big Readers Forum Index -> Discuss children's books here.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TheRejectAmidHair



Joined: 19 Nov 2008
Posts: 3864


Location: Staines, Middlesex

PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:07 am    Post subject: Children's books: then and now  Reply with quote

I tend not to post on this part of the board because I am not very well read in children’s literature. But as our own children were growing up, I couldn’t help feeling that the children’s books I and others of my age were reading at the ages of, say, 11, 12, 13, were considerably more demanding than the books our own children were reading at the same age, - more complex in terms of breadth of vocabulary, complexity of sentence structure, and, often, richness of imagery. When I asked my daughter, then aged 12, to read Smith be Leon Garfield, she found it too difficult: which surprised me, since, back in 1972, when I was 12, our entire class had read it.

I strongly suspected that books aimed at children were deliberately simplified. But since I had only anecdotal evidence, I didn’t say too much about it. So it is interesting to find respected children’s author Geraldine McCaughrean voicing quite explicitly what I have long suspected:

http://www.thebookseller.com/blogs/keep-it-rich.html

The article is excellent. I found myself cheering when I read this:


Quote:
Surely, part of the joy of older reading is the language itself? The language of books is deliberately different from—more extraordinary than—everyday, utilitarian speech. The more monosyllabic and Neanderthal conversation becomes, the more exotic and strange the written word grows in comparison. Is that an argument for making books comfortingly simplistic, or a powerful reason not to?

In any case, rich vocabulary isn’t an ornamental extra. Without sufficient vocabulary, we cannot formulate thought. We are easily manipulated by politicians, press, lawyers and charlatans; easily belittled. To be stuck with insufficient words is to be trapped in a bell jar —shouting and agitated, but still unable to make ourselves understood. So we owe it to children to gift them as large a vocabulary as possible, and books are much the easiest way of doing it.

Any thoughts from anyone who knows children’s literature a bit better than I do?



_________________
See my blog: http://argumentativeoldgit.wordpress.com/

(Go on! - You'd like it!  - Honest!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TheRejectAmidHair



Joined: 19 Nov 2008
Posts: 3864


Location: Staines, Middlesex

PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

More from geraldine McCaugrean's article:

Quote:
The arguments runs that a child reading at any level, however rudimentary, may catch the reading bug later on, when there isn’t so much schoolwork to get through. They won’t.


This should be shouted from the rooftops!



_________________
See my blog: http://argumentativeoldgit.wordpress.com/

(Go on! - You'd like it!  - Honest!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Caro



Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 2932


Location: Owaka, New Zealand

PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was hoping the article would give some examples, Himadri, but it didn't really.  I suppose how rich books are depends to some extent on where they fit in the literary slope.  The books I read as a child, and I am older than you, were much simpler than the YAF books for kids today.  Our book club read Memory by Margaret Mahy the other day, and I mentioned how much deeper such a book was than the Anne books I read and loved as a child.  One of the members said they were just plastic or false or some other derogatory word (I felt a little offended for my beloved Anne books, though re-reading some of them, I have felt I have well outgrown some of the later ones).  As for the Hardy Boys books I couldn't believe how someone had got away with such bad writing - and that was in the 1950s.  In comparison the books for young adults nowadays which are expected to be read by ordinary kids, not the avid readers or the brightest, seem head and shoulders above these, with topics of importance, adults given proper due, ideas of interest, etc.  

I'm probably not a good example as my reading was quite low-brow as a child (and I did expand to other works later quite easily), but I didn't manage Lorna Doone as a child, and as an adult one of Leon Garfield's books I found very difficult.  

I would have thought authors like Michael Morpurgo, Anne Fine, Neil Gaiman, Terry Pratchett, Penelope Lively and Louis Sachar, and fantasy writers like Ursula LeGuin and Susan Cooper and Diana Wynne Jones and doubtless more recent ones that I don't know use language fully and deeply.

Certainly picture books for young children are simply wonderful these days.  There was nothing like them when I was young.  Fantastic books full of interesting language and fantastical events and warmth and even of serious events like war.  

We all started reading with simple books of the Janet and John variety (though the starting books for kids nowadays are of much better quality than those and they are not as bad as people make out either) and many of us did go on to higher literature from there.  Eventually.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheRejectAmidHair



Joined: 19 Nov 2008
Posts: 3864


Location: Staines, Middlesex

PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is perhaps not surprising that Geraldine McCaughrean doesn't provide specific examples. It's one thing to make general comments; but to single out by name fellow practitioners would constitute personal attacks.

As I said, I am not at all well read in chidren's literature: this is why I asked what others, better read than myself in this area, think of this matter. My understanding of this issue is based entirely on anecdotal evidence, and that is obviously an inadequate basis on which to form general judgements. But going by that anecdotal evidence, for what little it may be worth, I was certainly dismayed, and not a little angry, that the highly rated (as far as OFSTED were concerned) schools that our daughter had attended had not prepared her to take in a book at the age of 12 that, some 35 years earlier, our entire class, at that same age, had read, and had been expected to read. In the years that followed at our daughter's school, there was, yet again, absolutely no encouragement as far as reading was concerned: all encouragement had to come from home. Yes, it's all anecdotal evidence, I know, but given that it's also personal experience, I don't find myself too inclined towards the view that everything on this front is OK, or even better than it had been.

The few contemporary children's books I have seen may be described as variable. Some are indeed very fine; there are also others, e.g. those by the very highly rated children's writer Jacqueline Wilson, where the language used is as undemanding as it is possible to be. Even the better ones that I have seen do not make the sort of demand on children that books by the likes of Rosemary Sutcliff or Leon Garfield had done in previous generations. But yes, I do certainly accept there were undemanding children's books back then also.

I do strongly agree with various points Geraldine McCaughrean makes. Firstly, there is the very important point that to restrict linguistic ability is to restrict thought itself. And that, secondly, the only way to develop greater linguistic ability is to encourage reading of demanding books. And in this, as far as my admittedly anecdotal (though personally experienced) evidence indicates, we are failing.

I also like Geraldine McCaughrean's distinction between spoken language and written language, and her insistence that the latter has to be more sophisticated. It is a distinction that is being increasingly eroded, and not merely in children's literature; but the effect of this trend seems to me particularly deleterious when it comes to children's literature, as it reinforces the impression that this increasingly inarticulate mode of communication is the only mode there is.

I also agree with her broadside against the often expressed sentiment that as long as children are reading something, anything,then that's OK. It isn't. Once one becomes habituated to material that is undemanding, then the leap to material that makes greater demands becomes very difficult indeed. And when there is no assurance that the effort to surmount these difficulties will be rewarded, then it is hard to see why anyone should be motivated to tackle these difficulties in the first place. I feel this is an important point, and one not often made.

But yes, I do admit to not knowing much about contemporary children's literature beyond my own admittedly little but discouraging experience with it. Of course, I accept there are still very fine writers for children - Michael Morpugno, Anne Fine, and all the others you mention. (And, indeed, Geraldine McCaughrean herself.) But how widely such writers are read by children (many of these writers you name are not specifically chidren's authors) is, of course, another matter. And yes, of course I hope I am wrong in thinking that general standards of children's literacy is declining. But when so prominent a practitioner as Geraldine McCaughrean makes such strong statements publicly, they do, I think,demand to be taken seriously.



_________________
See my blog: http://argumentativeoldgit.wordpress.com/

(Go on! - You'd like it!  - Honest!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
chris-l



Joined: 27 Nov 2008
Posts: 727



PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It does occur to me that one of the differences between my childhood and that of children today is the relatively small importance that seems to be given to having stories read aloud. The much less prescriptive regime in schools when I was a kid meant that teachers could set aside half an hour or so to read us a story, more or less on a whim. This often happened on a Friday afternoon, or other times when we needed to 'wind down'. The books were simply things that the teacher loved, not part of any curriculum, but that meant that some of that enthusiasm was communicated to the listeners.

It was in this way that I first discovered the 'William' books, and the 'Worzel Gummidge' stories, or 'The Family from One End Street', as well as classics such as 'Heidi' and 'Children of the New Forest'. I even remember one teacher reading us extracts from 'Don Quixote', although I am pretty sure that that must have been a children's version. This was particularly helpful with some of the classics, where the language was often quite complex: having been introduced to stories in this way, it did not seem such a great leap to move on to reading them ourselves.

I think I am talking about a slightly younger age group than is referred to in Himadri's original post, but if teenagers are not reading at the level they once did, it may be that the root of the problem lies in their earlier experience of books and stories.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Castorboy



Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1798


Location: Castor Bay Auckland NZ

PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe the training colleges do not impress on the trainee teachers the importance of reading other books outside the required textbooks that are used for the basic process of instructing children how to read. Is it a fact that trainees arrive at a college without any knowledge of the value of 'difficult' novels because they in turn were not taught literary appreciation at school? Like chris, I had the benefit of a teacher who read to us one of his favourite novelists during a Friday afternoon period. That in turn led me to the library after school (and home to parents who were regular readers).


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chris-l



Joined: 27 Nov 2008
Posts: 727



PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it is much more that teachers, at least here in the UK are now very much required to stick to a curriculum that is set out in a fair degree of detail from on high. There seems to be little room for those creative diversions from which many of us of an older generation benefitted so much. I am sure it has all been done with the best possible intentions, but it does seem to strike at the very heart of what we mean by education.

On the positive side, I do read to my grandchildren (as I also did to their parents) and have been pleasantly surprised at the enjoyment they have shown in some of the more traditional stories. What impact this will have on their future reading, it is too early to say, but at least they have been exposed to a range of stories.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chris-l



Joined: 27 Nov 2008
Posts: 727



PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it is much more that teachers, at least here in the UK are now very much required to stick to a curriculum that is set out in a fair degree of detail from on high. There seems to be little room for those creative diversions from which many of us of an older generation benefitted so much. I am sure it has all been done with the best possible intentions, but it does seem to strike at the very heart of what we mean by education.

On the positive side, I do read to my grandchildren (as I also did to their parents) and have been pleasantly surprised at the enjoyment they have shown in some of the more traditional stories. What impact this will have on their future reading, it is too early to say, but at least they have been exposed to a range of stories.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Green Jay



Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 1605


Location: West Sussex

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Caro wrote:

Certainly picture books for young children are simply wonderful these days.  There was nothing like them when I was young.  Fantastic books full of interesting language and fantastical events and warmth and even of serious events like war.  

 


I don't recall any picture books from my very young childhood, only the Noddy books and Beatrix Potter, which are little books anyway, not big picture spreads. But then most of our books were secondhand and babies' and toddlers' books tend to get so well-loved they fall apart, so perhaps they were not good enough to pass on. Many of the picture books my children had and the ones available now - some are the same 20 years on - are wonderful, witty even when quite simple, and lots of styles to choose from.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Green Jay



Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 1605


Location: West Sussex

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've read the article and the links  to the research now, and thoroughly support the ideas in the article - although it is quite brief. You should always raise your  game - however are you going to learn anything otherwise, whether it is new information, new vocabulary or new ideas? I have read only a couple of Geraldine McCaughrean's books but was struck by the way that she takes no prisoners. Good for her publishers too for letting her do so. (Though trying to spell her name is quite a challenge to me!  Wink )

It sounds as if it is not necessarily books that are getting simpler, but that school students are not pushed/drawn towards more challenging stuff out there and many fall back of their own accord on the simple stuff that is available. I have to make a sweeping statement here and say that I think this may have to do with the feeling that has been around for several decades now that it is fine to be childish, and to be seen to be behaving so, even when you are no longer a child. My own offspring still shoot monsters for fun, they are sophisticated (er hm) adults with good jobs and grown-up responsibilities. So there is no embarrassment, apparently, for teenagers about reading books meant for much younger kids. When I was a teenager we were always tryign to seem more grown-up than we were (I know this still counts with clothes, going out etc), but grown-up in a specific way. It was fashionable to be clever and sophisticated. Not swatty-school- clever, but  well-informed and mature, with superior taste to our lowbrow suburban environment. I'd claim to have read a book or seen a film or knew what a play was about, that I hadn't or didn't, because I felt mortified that I was actually ignorant about it and did not want to appear so. (Didn't always work, but then you'd rush away and read that book!) I would have felt equally mortified to be seen reading my childhood books on the commuter train to work at 17 years of age. But then I wouldn't have been seen dead reading sloppy romantic fiction in public, either. No, I was reading Virginia Woolf and D H Lawrence on the train and in the park at lunchtime!!

I am not arguing that this attitude was better, in a concrete way, but it did prompt us or push us to taking on more complex films, plays, books than we would otherwise have done. I've just realised the word for all this was 'disdain': it was true of other cultural areas - we were disdainful of certain sorts of music, ways of dressing etc. Maybe we were just dreadful little snobs!! I am much more relaxed now, and less judgemental (well, a bit  Wink ) but I just think a bit of social embarrassment maybe has a good effect. Now that it's just funny and/or ironic even for quite educated people to 'love ' TOWIE and be addicted to soaps and Strictly, there is not so much room or time for pursuing more highbrow interests and no informal pressure to do so.

So now do I have to get my coat...?



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Big Readers Forum Index -> Discuss children's books here. All times are GMT
Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Big Readers Theme by Mike Alexander
Based on Artemis by Vjacheslav Trushkin
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum