• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

What do you think of classics "for children"?

JoannaC

New Member
I am student teaching right now and was quite excited to learn that the teacher did regular "classic reading" with the kids. She explained to me that in addition to their free choice personal reading, they do additional silent reading from a library of classics she provides for the classroom. It turned out on inspection that these were a special series of classics "for children." They managed to condense and simplify Wuthering Heights to less than 50 pages!

I am not sure how I feel about this. Part of me is glad that the children are at least being exposed to classic authors and their works, and in a way that is meaningful and interesting and makes them excited about the stories. And I also recognize that an 11-year-old would not be able to handle some of these books in their original form. But on the other hand...it isn't really the same thing. They have HEAVILY edited these books, and it just isn't the same thing. I am curious what you all think of this. Is it so important to expose the kids to these works and a love of them that reading them even in such a simplified form is still a great service? Or should we say that if an 11-year-old is not ready to read Wuthering Heights as it is written, it is better that they simply wait until they are older rather than reading a watered-down form?
 
A child of 11 would not really be ready to read such classics as
wuthering heights!

Its to heavy for them at that age,they should be getting into books in a fun type of way!

As reading the likes of wuthering heights could put them off reading all together.
 
JoannaC said:
It turned out on inspection that these were a special series of classics "for children." They managed to condense and simplify Wuthering Heights to less than 50 pages!

Sounds like complete crap to me. Read a childrens book instead, there is no point in reading this condenced version simply because of the name on the cover.
 
I'm sure that the teacher has the best interest of her students at heart, but I can't help but thinking they are missing something. I read a lot of classics for children as a kid, and I think they turned me off to the actual books. I hate to re-read things, and the idea of reading Moby Dick again holds no appeal. I already know the basic story, so why would I read it again? At the same time, I'd rather see kids reading books like that than Sponge Bob Squarepants books. So, I suppose she simply be looking at it from a "lesser of two evils" perspective.
 
I am of two minds about this whole idea: firstly, I am delighted that any child would be interested in a Victorian Age book, however condensed it might be! To step back into the past and learn something--even if its a small step--is to protect against the folly of complacency. I, myself, once read a "comic-bookish" Sherlock Holmes book, and it created such a thirst in me that I went on to read 3 of the full-length Holmes Novels and many of the short stories.

Conversely, I am not too fond of the over-simplifying of everything we do these days! We may just be establishing a culture that "microwaves" everything--books, historical events, food, duties---everything!! And this part of me thinks that we should teach kids the value of doing things slowly and right...i.e. waiting to read the full work of an author, and not settling for abridgments or condensations.
 
From my experience, my kids enjoyed the kiddie versons, and now that they are older, some are reaching for the unabridged classics on their own. I would suggest too, that one way get around this problem might be to read unabridged clasic to the child. That way difficult vocabulary and themes can be discussed on the child's level. Then perhaps the child will be interested in reading it for themselves when they are older, having already had a pleasant experience with the book.
 
Some classics work fine at that age. Poetry is a great example of this, though I'd be a little leary of exposing them to works that are more appropriate for junior high or high school kids. There are some language level programs out there where you can type in a given sentence and figure out the rate for kids. While it is important to push them, we must also remember that they are at a different level of development and that giving them these works before they are cognitively able to digest them, will not be doing them, or us, any favors.
 
I was reading Gone With the Wind when I was eleven years old, all 1,047 pages of it.

Although I am guilty of having read some of those condensed versions of classic novels as a youth too. I never liked how short they were because even then I craved details.
 
I read Animal Farm in the 6th grade and that is usually not read until freshman year-clearly a case of under-estimating what kids can read at what age. Although we need to be cautious, setting the bar high isn't a bad idea either.
 
While I was reading classics at a young age, I would have appreciated if some of them were condensed. Some books were abridged for a reason. Take "Moby Dick" for example. I read the unabridged version, and was so fed up with details by the end of it. I imagine the abridged version is a quarter of the size. The plot itself was so buried in the unabridged that I felt like I was reading a textbook on whales instead of a novel.

Condensing books for children is a non-issue. It's something that comes up with elitists and arrogant authors. Do you miss something? Maybe. But it'd be the same as listening to a song on the radio instead of going out and buying the cd.
 
I really don't mind either way. On one hand, you are introducing children to great writing young, and hopefully getting them hooked for later on in life, but then again you may drive them away from reading the unabridged version of these later because they know the story already.

This happened to me from reading the complete works of Dickens in children classics type style. Not really being a fan of Dicken's style, I usually give up on his books straight away because I already know the end, but I know that if I had never read it before, I would keep pushing because I really don't like not knowing how things are going to turn out. That desire has pushed me through more than one book, let me tell you!

There's always plenty of classics that are aimed at children, anyway. Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, Watership Down , The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Hans Christian Anderson books, Aesop's Fables ... the list really is endless. Why not start the children on these so that they can move onto the other classics when their reading ability is up to par?
 
Back
Top