BS: Modernising classic (& other old) books

Subject: BS: Modernising classic (& other old) books
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 10:37 PM

I've always been a voracious reader - in 3rd class (ago 8) we did a speed & comprehension test & I went way past the number of words the teacher had counted!

Nowadays I don't remember so much but I still read zillions of books. I belong to 2 local libraries which each allow 20 books out at once ...

Some of the books & magazines I read as a kid were light & frivolous - some of the books & magazines I read as an adult are light & frivolous ... Quite often I would read words I didn't understand, today I still come across unfamiliar words, but that's what dictionaries are for. And why some authors include a glossary in their works.

Now THEY are going to replace all the old words with modern words in new editions of the world famous Enid Blyton books!

Lashings of editing jolly bad for Blyton books

Back in the 80's I put on a small exhibition of dolls in historic costume in a girls school where a friend worked. I described the costumes as the writers of the time did (& provided explanations of these terms in brackets where necessary.) At the same time I had friends who were curators at the new state Museum who had to re-write captions to exhibits in language a 12-year old would understand cos the expensive Consultants hired by management said that was the national reading age.

Subject: RE: BS: Modernising classic (& other old) books
From: Will Fly
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 02:19 AM

I read one or two of the Blyton books when I was a kid - many years ago. They didn't appeal to me. From a modern standpoint, many of the values and ideas in them are unacceptable - racist, sexist, etc. - and the language is a dead giveaway to it all. But I wouldn't have one word of them changed by a jot or tittle. They're of their time and should be seen as such, and read as such. And that goes for other fiction which has caused raised public eyebrows in later years - "Little Black Sambo" being one, for example.

Nothing of this sort should be censored and, in fact, you can't stop kids reading what they want, in the end. There are difficult decisions to be made by the people that provide books for children - schools, libraries, parents - and I wouldn't personally provide this stuff for my own grandchildren at any price. But they will read what they want to - always providing they can read, of course. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Modernising classic (& other old) books
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:44 AM

As a Seventies child, I had no trouble with Victorian children's literature, and I don't see why a child now would have any greater trouble with 'big' words - or words describing another era - than I did as a kid. Children aren't anywhere near as stupid as some adults would like to imagine they are. They are perfectly capable of 'relating' to worlds outside of their immediate experience. They have brains and imaginations after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Modernising classic (& other old) books
From: Jack Campin
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:50 AM

What usually happens with old and reactionary children's literature isn't that chidren read what *they* want, but that Daily-Mail-reader parents want to be able to force their own kids to read what they were brought up with.

"Little Black Sambo" isn't in that category at all. It's an entirely positive story about a resourceful Tamil kid, and the objections to it have come only from Americans who can't see past the name, which only resembles anything offensive in their culture by sheer fluke.

Subject: RE: BS: Modernising classic (& other old) books
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:55 AM

Blyton isn't literature, but it & similar books got children reading - same as Harry Potter now-a-days.

Anyone worrying about kids & big/old fashioned words just need to look at all the dinosaur books around - kids devour them.

sandra (who doesn't read much Literature but learns a lot)