Children's Books discussion

over the years? When I read a book from my childhood, the vocabulary seems so much higher than current books.

Any thoughts?

I sometimes wonder about that as well, but what bothers me even more is when classics like Anne of Green Gables, Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm et al are abridged and/or simplified. I know that it is important to get children to read, but that should not happen by abridging and destroying the classics. And, this happens in other languages as well; some German children's classics have had the same thing done to them.

Chandra, I think you're right about the classics being precisely that, classics, the cream of the crop. But, I still wish that publishers would not attempt to abridge them, but just leave them as they are (or were) originally.

I also think that keeping children interested in books and, as you said, appealing to broader audiences is both a wonderful and an essential development. I mean, we don't want to go back to a time, where only the privileged, only the children receiving a broad and intensive education, were reading or able to read, to afford books.

And, when one is true to oneself, one must admit that simple books also have an appeal, a book is not automatically good just because it uses a difficult vocabulary and deals with intricate and problematic concepts. I think it's good to have a wide selection of books available, both simple and challenging (and, not just for children, but for adult readers as well).

Interesting thoughts, everyone!

I think there has always been a variety of challenging and well written AND poorly or "dumbed down" written books. Now & then. I hate it when any book is abridged, unless it's in an entirely different form, but full length books presented as such, I like them only when they're unabridged.

I don't like abridged books for children or adults! But I agree that a variety of reading levels is good, again for children and adults. I like to see what adults read riding the bus, and of course it ranges from Harlequin romance-type books to heavy duty classics. I'm happy when people can find books to read that they enjoy, and it's even better for children. There are certainly contemporary children's books with challenging vocabularies - I've been astonished by some of the words my grandson has figured out while reading to me from the back seat of the car!

BunWat wrote: "Although I have to admit I've read a few books I think could have benefited from a little abridgement!! Or maybe just some editing."

The trouble is that most (all?) abridged books don't make improvements in that way.

BunWat wrote: "Although I have to admit I've read a few books I think could have benefited from a little abridgement!! Or maybe just some editing."

I know what you are getting at, but I would still say that it is better not to abridge a work of fiction (except perhaps, if the author himself/herself chooses to provide an abridged version alongside with the unabridged version). Also, as Lisa has stated, most times, abridged books do not make any improvements, and I've often found that precisely that what was abridged or edited out, was what I most liked about the book(s). I mean, there were times when I was reading hugely long and expansive French and German novels and finding it a real chore getting through these, but I would never have accepted having these novels abridged or having the vocabulary etc. "modernised" (when I read classic literature for both children and adults, I expect there to be words etc. with which I am not familiar and expressions that might be somewhat unmodern, it would not be the same reading experience to have that changed). Oh, and yes, I also read what one might call "trashy" novels at times. I read a certain amount of popular fiction, and I actually sometimes read Harlequin Romances or the romantic fiction of Victoria Holt in French, as it is a relatively easy way to keep up my language skills without too much pain. I also don't only read "classic" German literature, but children's and popular fiction as well (otherwise I would go bonkers, as German literature can be a real chore).

Great conversation! I'm learning a lot. I didn't realize how many of our classics have been abridged.

This is an interesting discussion.

What provoked me to post this topic is that we are reading "How to Eat Fried Worms" (1973) and the vocabulary is just so much higher than I remember it being. I remember it as being rather babyish, but it really is not.

I think Chandra has a point that the lower quality books went out of print. For example, we just read, "I Like Cats" (1959) by Edward Dolch, of "Dolch Words" fame. It has very few pictures. It is not a bad book, but if you compare it to today's books like "Henry and Mudge" and so on, it seems really drab.

Kirei wrote: "over the years? When I read a book from my childhood, the vocabulary seems so much higher than current books.

Any thoughts?"

They have definitely been dumbed down. All one has to do is take a copy of the original early Nancy Drew or Hardy Boys books and compare them with the modern editions. The writing and vocabulary are much more complex in the originals.

We really are cheating our children by not challenging them to stretch their reading skills. Sure, some children may have to use a dictionary when reading these books, but what's wrong with that?

Basically, much of education is being dumbed down. I blame it in significant part on the removal of Latin as a required part of the high school curriculum.

Chandra wrote: "Oh and I also think that authors and publishers are making more of an effort (I hope) to appeal to broader audiences and I can't complain too much about that!"

My sister writes children's books. For some publishers, she is given a specific limited vocabulary which she is allowed to use for each given age, and she isn't permitted to use any vocabulary beyond that except for character or place names.

Chandra wrote: "Okay, I do have a confession to make. When I was a teenager and I was babysitting the parents had a set of abridged classics and I picked up Great Expectations and read it cover to cover. I loved..."

Dare I confess that as a young reader I loved the Classic Comics? Of course, I was only about seven or eight at the time, but still...

Everyman wrote: "Kirei wrote: "over the years? When I read a book from my childhood, the vocabulary seems so much higher than current books.

Any thoughts?"

They have definitely been dumbed down. All one has t..."

I agree with your comment about Latin. I've taught German language courses at the college and university level, and those students who have had Latin in high school always seemed to get the grammar much faster (unfortunately, they also tended to get bored because I had to do so much remedial English grammar etc. before I even started on some of the more "complicated" parts, like the accusative).

I cannot believe that your sister is actually given a set of vocabulary to use, how limiting. Sure, you don't want to make the reading experience too much of a chore, but there needs to be at least a little bit of a challenge. But, I guess, using a dictionary, or actually skipping over a few words or guessing at the meaning of some (like intelligent guessing) is considered too much of an effort. Pretty sad!!

I agree that books have been dumbed down a bit because I have noticed that most children's books recently are no more than 20 pages long (at least). I have recently been reading children's book writer Robert McCloskey's books and I have noticed that most of his books that were written in the 50s were about 60 pages long and I have noticed that most children's books in the past were at least 40 pages long and the number of pages in a picture books recently have been lowered down.

BunWat wrote: "Well hang on a minute. There are early reader series that work by building from a set vocabulary and adding more words at each level up. Those series aren't meant to be great works of fiction, th..."

Well, if the books are early readers series, I would both expect and accept the author having a set of vocabulary for each level. I guess it really depends what kind of children's books she is writing. I think it's important to have a variety of books available at every level, from very easy to challenging.

And, I think the same holds true for adults. I know that I don't always want to read challenging literary tomes, we all need (or most of us need) light, easy and fluffy reading material from time to time. It's the same with children, they need to be able to get their hands on both easy and difficult materials.

Case in point. I read in a book on Enid Blyton, titled The Blyton Phenomenon: The Controversy Surrounding the World's Most Successful Children's Writer, that many librarians and teachers have problems with Blyton and her continuing popularity not only because some of her work is old fashioned and not politically correct, but also because much of her children's literature is supposedly "too easy" and not challenging enough. However, the author also states that most children will (on their own) move beyond Enid Blyton in a few years (she's a bit of a stepping stone from easier to more challenging reading, and the ones who continue reading primarily Enid Blyton books are usually those children who find reading difficult, and in that case, I think it's better that they at least are still reading).

And, I have to admit that while I have not read much of Blyton's adventure stories and her stories for very young readers, I have read and still enjoy her school stories, they are not challenging, but fun and entertaining (and do show what boarding school life was like in the 40s).

In the U.S., the standard is 32 or 24 pages total. It has to do with the way that the paper is folded, into signatures of eight, to maximize the use of the sheet on the printing press. Particularly for full-color books, more pages in more expensive, which is why the catalog of "story books" which used to be 40 to 56 pages with color is not as common anymore.

Most new picture books seem to be 32 pages, but I've read plenty that are 48 pages. Interesting information, Jacqueline. I also don't think page numbers have that much to do with whether a book is challenging or dumbed down.

Lisa wrote: "Most new picture books seem to be 32 pages, but I've read plenty that are 48 pages. Interesting information, Jacqueline. I also don't think page numbers have that much to do with whether a book is ..."

Oh well, Lisa I was thinking that because the pages in picture books were shortened, many children nowandays might not be able to adjust to the lengthy pages of a chapter book if they are not adjusted to the lengthy pages of a picture book. I feel like children nowandays are not exposed to enjoying the content of the book because there is not enough background for the characters or the situations in the book for the children to relate to. Now, I'm not saying that short children's books are horrible, because there were many children's books like "Where the Wild Things Are" that are short but extremely memorable, but I felt like children nowandays are not being challenged enough in reading more pages than they are accustomed to since I felt like that if they read more pages than they are used to, then they would be able to challenge their reading skills.

There is definately a trend to shorter picture book texts -- anything over 1,500 words is considered lengthy now. That's a bigger constriction on storytelling than number of pages, because editors and some buyers resist pages with a long block of text.

BunWat wrote: "But then you look at a book like, Tuesday or The Red Tree and you see what can be accomplished with not a lot of text."

I love some of those wordless, or nearly wordless, picture books!

Chandra wrote: "I do too! The Arrival is mind blowing!"

I agree!!! Very sophisticated!

Jacqueline wrote: "There is definately a trend to shorter picture book texts -- anything over 1,500 words is considered lengthy now. That's a bigger constriction on storytelling than number of pages, because editors ..."

Chandra wrote: "Thanks Jacqueline! That's kind of what I was trying to say, but obviously didn't have the knowledge to back it up ;-)"

Jacqueline (are you a picture book author?-!) is right! Editors usually accept only submissions for 32-page picture books. That means the author/illustrator should plan on about 26 to 28 pages and the remaining five (approximately) are for front and end pages, like title page, etc. Also, most editors are currently seeking picture books with LESS than 1000 words; 750 is even better. Of course SOME authors get to break those rules! See Kate diCamillo's Louise, the Chicken...

Gloria wrote: "Jacqueline (are you a picture book author?-!) is right! Editors usually accept only submissions for 32-page picture books. That means the author/illustrator should plan on about 26 to 28 pages and..."
Oops, busted. I also was a children's book editor, eons ago, just after dinosaurs and IBM Selectric Typewriters.

Different kinds of intelligence definitely have their place. Measuring 'IQ scores' is controversial, too. There are plenty of books available at all reading levels.

All we can really do is try to get children to use their minds somehow to be good citizens. Whether it's to read fiction or newspapers, to build contraptions, to organize canned-foods drives, to campaign for a candidate who supports human rights... - whatever their strength, we can encourage them.

If they're using their heads and their hearts, we've done well.

Chandra wrote: "I heard about this article today and it's sort of related to this topic.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/special..."

Thanks. Very interesting.

I strongly disagree with Vlad when discussing fiction for children. There are just too many choices out there. There are simple books and complex books, low Lexile and high. Marketing for children almost seems too high at times. As a school librarian, I occasionally wonder how much my 9 year olds are getting out of some of the text they are reading. The Series of Unfortunate Events is considerably more complex than anything I read as a third or fourth grader.

However, if we were discussing non-fiction texts as used in a classroom assignments, that might be a different discussion. I believe there is less non-fiction or textbook reading required, and the length of non fiction choices do seem to be shorter and more simple.

The reasons for this are complex and must take national standardized testing into consideration. In the past, students were assigned textbooks and took them home to read in them for homework. Today, more schools cannot afford to purchase textbooks for every student, and instead purchase a classroom set and share among the classes. Additionally, the schools do not want the students to lose the books as it difficult and costly to replace. More importantly, if the children do not do their homework (and this is a rampant problem), then it is the teacher that is "accountable" when the students do not do well on standardized testing. It is more reliable to simply teach the information in class.

Common Core standards theoretically address this problem by going back to requiring specific kinds of non-fiction texts. This is new to me, so I shall refrain from commenting on this now.

Lastly, I believe that the advent of the internet has led many adults (including some educators) to falsely believe that all information is available quickly and easily on the internet. This means that research skills as being taught to children are sloppy, and less reading is required.

I'd also like to see some research stats on the attention-span of American children today. Everything -- for adults and children -- is disseminated in shorter and faster clips, from the news to advertisements to video games. Reading for a long time on a subject that is not written in story-form to engage the reader quickly might be more difficult for children today than it was in the past.

This is not to say that these children are not "smart," but I think their capacity for sustained informational reading might be less than it was in the past.

I think it is also important to remember that those "classic" children's stories still in print and popular today are those that have stood the test of time, that like with today's books, there were also children's books in days gone by that were considered trivial, dumbed down etc. (and many of these simply were not kept in print, so the classic kids literature still in print today are those books that have survived, those books considered spectacular, special, well-written, you name it).

Vlad wrote: "In fact, I'm sure that I could write a computer program to go through a database of children's literature through several different decades and compare the complexity of the respective language. (Obviously, plot and themes would be impossible) "

There is such a program--it is a rather annoying thing called the Lexile Analyzer, which measures a book's complexity by word frequency and sentence length. In my opinion, this measurement is simplistic--attempting to black and white texts while excluding all other aspects of literary sophistication. See www.lexile.com

While it is true that The Wizard of Oz and The Secret Garden have pretty high lexile scores, but so does The Series of Unfortunate events.

Does sentence complexity = higher level thinking? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.


Things Fall Apart is a simple, but classic novel (not a kids' book) about African colonialism. It only has a Lexile of 890. It's Not My Fault I Know Everything is middle-grade "Dear Dumb Diary" book of no consequence at all, but it has a higher Lexile. It is definitely not a more complex book, but it does have longer sentences and more vocabulary.

I would agree with Chandra that Newbery is probably not a good reflection of what kids are reading, as popularity is not a consideration for winning the award.

I also agree that some popular kids' lit is complex and good writing. I would put Harry Potter AND the Hunger Games in that category.


Nonetheless, I did a quick check of Newbery lexiles, just out of curiosity. I attached a few years.

Shen of the sea 780 (1926)
Little Town on the Prairie 850 (1934)
Johnny Tremain 840 (1944)
Hundred Dresses 870 (1945)
Shadow of a bull 740 (1965)
Summer of the Swans 830 (1971)
Bridge to Terabithia 810 (1978)
Westing Game 750 (1979)
Sarah Plain and Tall 560 (1986)
Tale of Desperaux 670 (2004)
Higher power of lucky 1010 (2007)
Graveyard Book 820 (2009)
Moon over manifest 800 (2011)

The discussion of adults reading kids or young adult books has come about previously. I am not prepared at the moment to go on too much about it now--I am supposed to be doing something else. Simply put, why think adults are more stupid because they are reading books aimed at a younger audience rather than books written for children have gotten better? Perhaps adults are just less afraid of acknowledging this? Literature written for children is not inferior. There are good books and bad books and easy and hard for both adults and children.

You are correct that lexile is mainly kids' books--it is a teaching tool. (I did find Heart of Darkness--try the advanced search and use only the title).

Certainly there are books for adults that are more complex than kids' lit, as I would always hope there to be. But there are many adult books that have the same lexile level as kids' books (700-1100). Reading Harry Potter is not better or worse than reading popular fiction for adults.

The number of adults that read complex English-major style "literature" has never been that high. People chose not to read, for a variety of reasons. There are many more entertainment opportunities for one thing.

I do not doubt that adults are reading less. I just don't think it is because kids' books are less complex.

Disagree about Collins too--but no time for that now! :)

I think that the way they talked when a lot of the classics were written sound like they are a lot "smarter" but I think if those same books were written now that they would be totally different more because of how people talk and write now that an effort to "dumb" them down.

Classics seem to take twice as long to say something than what it would take if we were to say it now.

Abigail wrote: "Chandra wrote: "Which means we LOVE children's books and so, of course, we're going to defend them - new and old and everything in between!..."

Well, I'll definitely defend them as a whole, althou..."

There were problems with society then, and there are are problems with society now, just like there were bad children's books then and there are bad children's books now (and vice versa, with the same holding true with books for adults). I am frankly sick and tired of individuals who make blanket claims (I will defend children's books both past and present, but I would not defend every children's book from the past being better or a classic, nor would I consider every modern children's book excellent and worthwhile, as you have stated, the trick is to read and analyse books as individual books and not to make sweeping statements, or at least not to try to do that).

I have major problems with individuals like Vlad who love to not only make blanket statements, but also seem unwilling or unable to accept opposing opinions. While I can and do respect people who have a different, even an opposing opinion to my own, I do not and never will respect those individuals who claim, as Abigail has previously pointed out, that if I have a different opinion, that this opposing, different opinion must not only be wrong, but also completely ignorant. Sorry, but how "dumbed down" is that kind of a worldview (one should at least consider other opinions and not just dismiss them outright).

There are wonderful modern children's books out there, with interesting themes, rich and often intriguing narrative styles (there are more and more children's novels written entirely in verse, for example, and more and more epistolary novels for children), wonderful intertextuality (using fairy tales, myth, history, other forms of fiction, politics, you name it). And while I do agree that there is also a lot of junk, I firmly believe that there was likely just as much junk in days gone by (but most of the junk, the chaff of the past is no longer in current print, only very few books will become classics, will remain as classics, and this holds true for both children's literature and literature for adults).

Oh, and people should also not come with that old chestnut that books that make use of intertextuality (books that perhaps rewrite literature, make use of fairy tales, base their characters on characters encountered in Shakespeare etc.) are by necessity dumbed down, or even acts of plagiarism. Because with that kind of an attitude, one would/should also be condemning much of the literature of the Enlightenment (especially its rich satires), in fact, one would in many ways negate all literature that has used or is planning to use world mythology, the Bible etc. (and if you specifically don't accept the use of intertextuality in children's literature, or consider it problematic and/or intellectually lazy, you should, by extension also not accept it being used in literature for adults, including literary classics, thus you should also consider neither Goethe's Faust nor Marlowe's Doctor Faustus as bona fide literature, as the skeleton, the frame, of the plot, the story is based on an old German puppet play and "Volksbuch" among other literatures, nor would and should you then also accept The Master and Margarita as literature, seeing that this book is not only based on the Faust motif, but also uses history, other literatures etc. in its content and thematics).

Abigail wrote: "Vlad wrote: "However, you don't seem to be genuinely interested in discussing this; you would rather shout down anyone who disagrees..."

More dancing in a circle! More argument about whether I'm d..."

So true, Abigail. And Vlad, why should we show you respect, when you have really not shown show us any. You came out swinging like a prize fighter, throwing accusations, innuendo and disrespect and then accuse us of being unwelcoming to you, ha (considering your accusatory, even borderline nasty stance and bearing, we have actually shown remarkable respect as well as constraint). Vlad, you are, in fact, the perfect example of the expression of the pot calling the kettle black. And honestly, if you are feeling attacked and the like, you really only have yourself to blame for this, Mr. Black Kettle.

And just to state something that should really be obvious. Just because a book uses complex language, does not mean that it automatically is good literature. For me, a well-crafted plot, a powerful story is much more important than language complexity (in fact, if the language is too complex or seems deliberately obtuse, that is often a bit of a turn-off, especially when language and rhetoric seem to drown the story or actually destroy the plot). Unfortunately, many individuals who consider language complexity as the be all and end all, as the standard for what is considered good literature, seem more interested in vocabulary, language form and structure, while content, thematics, even narrative flow and readability are ignored or at least not taken seriously enough.

I've been busy busy busy at home and work for the past two or three days. I find that I am cracking up and skimming this thread at this point!

(Trying to revise some of my reviews for kids to actually read and understand--more work than you think--I've got to strip the complexity!)

I was just thinking....this discussion has some intense complexity, but doubtless it will end up NOT being profound!

Vlad,
I've read the comments and had decided to refrain from commenting, because it is clear that you feel strongly about your opinions and I figured that anything I might add would not alter your opinions. However, to say that no one above is actually interested in discussing the actual topic or comparing specific books of the past to the present is out and out false. It is an interesting topic, and I feel that some valid points have been raised. But there have been specific titles listed and compared...using lexile scores as one method.

We have 3 moderators on this site, and I have been a participant for about 3 years. In that time, while I don't know any of them personally and don't agree with them on everything, I have come to really respect and value their opinions. They are passionate about children's literature (as are the rest of us in this group...that is why we joined to begin with) and they are intelligent women who are widely read. I am an avid reader and read a pretty wide variety of books, but they have all read even more avidly than I have.

Chandra did not accuse you of committing an infraction. However, the fact that the only topic you seem interested in visiting is this one, and your comments have been to criticize both current children's books (which we don't agree with) and the other members, it does beg the question why you joined a Children's Book group? If so few children's books are worth reading or if they have all been dumbed down, why did you not join a group that discusses classics or other genres that you have an interest in?

But, I think that Bun, Chandra, and others are right. It is time to walk away from this discussion... at least until we can disagree without being disagreeable and we can express our opinions without attacking the opinions of others.

I would hope that you would take the time to explore other threads here. You might find that there are books (both older and newer) that are complex, beautifully written, and worth the time to read. You might also find, as I have, that our moderators are fair, intelligent and interesting.

But enough of my soap box. It is time to get into a discussion on another thread about the great children's books I'm reading.

Vlad wrote: "Jenny wrote: "Chandra did not accuse you of committing an infraction. However, the fact that the only topic you seem interested in visiting is this one, and your comments have been to criticize bot..."

Vlad, like a picky eater, you seem to have chosen to chomp down on those select morsels that you enjoy and find palatable, while ignoring that which might not be entirely to your liking. And it is funny that all or at least most of your posts have really not been discussions, but rather pontifications about how correct your view is and how absolutely wrong and ignorant everyone else's views are. That is not a discussion, that is not a debate, and that also shows you have not read many of the posts, have perhaps not read them all that carefully, or maybe just don't want to deal with comments that might put chinks and holes in your argument.

Case in point, my own comments on the matter. I certainly HAVE NEVER said that all of today's literature for children is of stellar quality (far from it, there is also a lot of junk). But as someone who has read a lot of classic literature (in both English and German, and for both children and adults), I can definitely and with considerable authority (the authority of my own reading experiences) say that there also was a lot of junk, a lot of less than stellar children's literature in days gone by. Just because some older classic children's literature is still a classic today, does not mean that ALL children's literature from the 19th and early 20th century is/was by extension "stellar" A good example of this is the American author Louisa May Alcott. Her novel Little Women, was, indeed, stellar and still deserves its title as one of the greatest children's books (that is my personal opinion, mind, but many do agree with this). However, quite a few of Alcott's other books for children are not nearly as readable, are much more religiously preachy, are not as richly textured as Little Women (many of the books are still enjoyable to an extent, but the preachiness and "good girl" messages in, say, Jack and Jill can easily be a turn off, and even I, who generally enjoys reading vintage and older children's literature, find the book a bit of a chore and at times tedious to read).

What I am basically saying is that even in the past, there were ample examples of less than stellar children's literature (literature that might have worked for the narrow period when it was published, literature with specific, narrow religious or social messages, badly written literature etc. etc. etc.). Also, there are certain children's literature types that were popular in the early part of the 20th century that are not really all that popular now, or maybe have been replaced by another type of "fad" (I certainly have scant interest in and scant appreciation for children's and YA vampire fiction, but is its popularity much different from the popularity of school stories and college stories in the United Kingdom and the United States in the early to middle part of the 20th century, I have read quite a few of these stories and believe me, many of them are standard, predictable and formulaic, often enjoyable, but not stellar, and their popularity amongst girls of the past certainly, at least to me, somewhat mirrors the popularity of vampire fiction and the like today).

I also want to come back to one of the other points that I made previously, namely that there are some very "novel" (sorry pun not intended) children's books out there today, novels with interesting themes, important messages, cultural and literary intertextuality (books that not only should be taken seriously, but that can take their place amongst the classics). And for me, it is not so much how complex a book's language is, but how it is written, how the narrative flows, the messages presented, if the plot is clearly delineated that is of prime importance. For example, if a children's novel is written as a first person narrative, the voice of the narrator must feel authentic (so if the narrator is supposed to be a twelve year old girl, the narration must reflect that). And what I have noticed is that good narration, bad narration, good writing, less than stellar writing are not limited to the either the past or the present (perhaps, Vlad, you feel like modern children's literature as a whole has been "dumbed down" because more modern books are obviously available in the bookstores than older ones, except those still considered classics and in print, but believe me, there was more than enough junky and trivial literature for children in the past as well).

That being said, I do think that the fact that it is much less expensive today to produce and mass produce children's literature might have created a bit of a glut and a bit of a case of more less than stellar examples of children's literature being able to be published (some of it, no doubt, self published). And there definitely needs to be some attention paid by publishers as well as by authors to typos, grammar mistakes, illogical sentence structures and the like. I would definitely like to see better editing for children's literature (but again, I want to see that for all literature, some adult literature is even worse for this). But I definitely do not think that children's literature as a whole has been "dumbed down" or that it is as a whole of lesser quality than it was in the past. There are always things that could be improved, no doubt, but the past was not and is not some kind of literary mecca (there was junk in the past, there is junk now, but while we should perhaps point out the junk, it is kind of an affront to the many excellent children's authors of both the past and the present to concentrate on the junk and insist that the junk is all or most of what there is).

Oh and one more thing (sorry, this will only be short). Literature (both for adults and for children) often reflects not only the society, the time when/where it was published, but also reflects the vocabulary used, the communication standards, the rhetoric of the time. Thus, modern children's literature also reflects and should reflect modern times, modern speech, modern mores and modern culture. If you don't like modern society, modern children's literature might not be all that enjoyable for you, but for modern children, literature which reflects their times, their lives, their culture, their ways of communicating is as essential and as important as exposing them to the literatures, mores and cultures of the past.

Abigail wrote: "Jenny wrote: "In that time, while I don't know any of them personally and don't agree with them on everything, I have come to really respect and value their opinions..."

Jenny, I can't tell you ho..."

You also notice how Vlad has never really answered any of the questions posed, has never actually engaged in any sort of actual dialogue. I guess what he considers a discussion is different from what most of us consider a discussion, namely the respectful exchange of ideas (and actually answering some of the legitimate questions posed, he just blithely ignores those comments, those ideas that put holes into his own arguments).

But I guess one good thing has come from all of this for me, Vlad's invective has forced me to analyse my own views, to tweak them and to put them in writing, in words (so "thank you" Vlad, you and your invective have actually solidified my own views on children's literature, that modern children's literature is as good and as bad as the children's literature of and from the past, that modern children's literature as a whole has most definitely not been "dumbed down").

Abigail wrote: "Gundula wrote: "I certainly have scant interest in and scant appreciation for children's and YA vampire fiction, but is its popularity much different from the popularity of school stories and colle..."

Great point about how some children's books now considered as classics were not considered classics or even all that readable when they were first published (that actually also has parallels in adult literature, Melville's Moby Dick was also not considered great literature when it was first published, it received some scathing reviews and was not selling all the well either).

Maybe I should read some of the vampire school stories, it might at least partially change my mind, since I do enjoy school stories (nahh, probably not, but that is just my own preference).

Abigail wrote: "Gundula wrote: "I certainly have scant interest in and scant appreciation for children's and YA vampire fiction, but is its popularity much different from the popularity of school stories and colle..."

And I can certainly vouch for the fact that the stories about the "Little Peppers" although quite enjoyable, are definitely formulaic and sentimental.

Abigail wrote: "Gundula wrote: "that actually also has parallels in adult literature, Melville's Moby Dick was also not considered great literature when it was first published, it received some scathing reviews an..."

There are lots of authors who were under-appreciated in their own times, which again, I think strengthens the argument that the literature of the past is not automatically better than the literature of the present (and vice versa, of course).

Abigail wrote: "Gundula wrote: "I think strengthens the argument that the literature of the past is automatically better than the literature of the present (and vice versa, of course)..."

Sorry, did you mean that..."

That's exactly what I meant, oops:-) I've changed that now.

BunWat wrote: "Also, returning to and expanding a bit on something I touched on earlier in this thread, we do have a tendancy to think of old fashioned language as somehow more serious, or intellectual, or elevat..."

Great point, Bun. And we also assume that old fashioned language is by necessity more formal, which is not always the case. The pronoun "thou" for example, is actually the familiar form of "you" (which in English is now used for both formal and informal situations), but because "thou" is considered old fashioned now (which it is), people also tend to simply assume that it is a "formal" mode of address.

Vlad wrote: "BunWat wrote: "And in the same way we tend to use older forms of language to signal formality, we also use older forms of dress, older forms of decoration, etc.

Look at a wedding dress, its almost..."

I don't know how you want to compare books, but if you are just going to take some random children's books from the 50s and compare them to random children's books from the 90s (and if you are only going to compare language and form), you will likely not come up with any useful conclusions.

First of all, you would need to compare similar types of books (it would be no use comparing 50s adventure tales or 50s girls fiction with 90s fantasy of 90s epistolary books for children).

And while only looking at language and form, might give you some insight, it will not give you any worthwhile conclusions unless you compare both form and content (because wether you agree with this or not, contents, themes are just as important as language and form). Formalism as literary theory works well in conjunction with other literary theories, like New Historicism, Marxism, Reader Response Theory and so on, but by itself, it lacks substance and interpretative quality.