“Real” reading for kids: yes or no?
Yesterday morning the Guardian Books Blog posted an article about “realism” in fiction for children and teenagers, debating whether or not kids’ books have got too “scary” or “upsetting,” and whether or not writers should be required to take a more optimistic approach, particularly in books to be taught in schools.
I was interested to read the statement of one parent whose 10-year-old daughter was upset by a book about the Holocaust: “my daughter didn’t know anything about the second world war or the Holocaust. She was completely unprepared. She was given it because it was at the reading level she was at. The teacher hadn’t read it.”
Now, as a teacher, I am fairly sure that what actually happened between teacher and child has been quite seriously twisted into some fabulous parental buck-passing here. One: the book obviously wasn’t being taught, as the teacher had not read it — so presumably the child wasn’t required to read it, she’d chosen to do so. Two: the parent claims the child “was given” the book, which would suggest that the teacher picked it out specifically for her. This would be a) pretty poor teaching (far better to give the child a choice of books in their range) and b) highly unlikely given that the teacher had not read the book — why would they specifically pick out a book they hadn’t read to give to a student who’d obviously reached an advanced reading level? My guess is that the student actually got it out of the school library, with the teacher’s permission. And three: your ten-year-old doesn’t know ANYTHING about the Second World War? OK, whatever, I’m not a parent so I’ll keep quiet. But how exactly is her being emotionally unprepared to find out about this huge moment in our civilization’s history her teacher’s fault?
I know, I know, my bashing this woman doesn’t seem terribly relevant to the argument as a whole, but because I’m a teacher I felt a bit uncomfortable reading this article. Sure, the debate over whether the responsibility for a child’s personal and social development lies with their parents or their teachers is an old one, but it seems that more and more people are deciding that hey, if anything goes wrong in their kid’s life, it’s nothing to do with their own input — just shoot the teacher.
As a teacher, I feel I should be able to give a high school first year (so, 11 or 12 years old) a copy of Anne Frank’s Diary without their parents kicking up a shitstorm. Yes, it’s a book about the Holocaust, and yes, the ending is about as bleak and nasty as endings get. However, when you get to twelve years old, you ought to have at least started to learn about the ways of the world. You’re in high school, so chances are you already know that Shit Things Happen For No Reason, whether your parents have caught onto this or not. Is literature in schools (or anywhere else, for that matter) really there to con kids into believing that you always get a happy ending? Of course it isn’t. Literature is a school subject like any other — its purpose is to teach you something, to prepare you for real life in the real world. 11 and 12 year olds are also learning History at this point, so they know that the world is a nasty, cruel, dark, violent place sometimes. And to be honest, wouldn’t you be a bit worried if that didn’t upset them a bit? When I read Anne Frank’s Diary for the first time, I was ten… and it scared the bejeezus out of me. But I was also absorbed by it and read it over and over. Yes, it upset me, but it also taught me a lot. Isn’t that a good thing?
I also think it’s odd that parents are complaining about “realism” in contemporary fiction for children and teens, when classic texts like To Kill A Mockingbird, The Colour Purple and Death of a Salesman have been taught in classrooms the world over for years. These novels are full of horrible stuff: rape, racism, murder, incest, mental illness… but because they’re “Literature with a capital L” they’re somehow OK. I don’t know many parents who’d fret over giving their ten year old a copy of Oliver Twist to read, for example, and yet look: extreme poverty, domestic violence, child-trafficking, squalor and death. Why is it OK for schools to teach Nineteen Eighty Four to sixteen year olds, but not OK for Patrick Ness’ dystopias to sit on the library shelves? It stinks of double standards, frankly.
So yes, I am all for realism, violence, and scary stuff. However, there are some other factors to be taken into consideration. One: we’re talking about books in the classroom here, and the classroom is a place where children who’ve been affected by what they’ve read can vocalise and discuss that with someone who’s qualified to help them (or at least, I’d like to hope so). When a book is being “taught” to a child, the chances of them getting the wrong end of the stick or being unable to rationalise what they’re reading are small, and if that does happen, they have someone they can talk about it with. This isn’t necessarily true of kids just picking a book at random off a bookstore shelf — you’d like to think they’d get the same support from parents or peers if they needed it, but it’s not always the case, sadly. The role of the teacher — but as mentor rather than scapegoat — is vital.
Two: there’s a big difference between a ten-year-old and a sixteen-year-old, and a big difference between suitable reading material for one and the other. Parents (and teachers for that matter) should be able to look at a book and think “not til they’re a year or two older” or “they’re beyond this now” — they shouldn’t just think “it says Teen Fiction, he’s 13, that’ll do.” I’m dead against age-banding on kids’ books because I think as soon as you slap a “16+ only” sticker on something, every ten-year-old and their cat will be dead set on reading it. Instead, I think a degree of involvement in what your child/student is reading is required. Apart from anything else, if a 16 year old boy’s been upset by something he read in a book, there’s no way he’s going to tell anyone… so you need to be paying attention.
Three: every kid is different, and you have to acknowledge that. While 99% of 17-year-olds might be able to cope fine with The Lovely Bones in a taught environment, there’ll always be one or two who’ll be totally freaked out by it. As a teacher, you’re perfectly within your rights to teach an emotionally “difficult” text, as long as you’ve assessed your students and know they’re ready for it, and as long as you’re ready to justify your decision to prickly parents. However, you also need to be prepared for the fact that “difficult” texts will bring “difficulties” out of the woodwork — if you’re not prepared to sit down and talk one-to-one with that student who’s now afraid to walk home at night, don’t teach The Lovely Bones.
And four: there aren’t many, but there are some books I wouldn’t give to kids — heck, there are some books I wouldn’t give to adults. Stuff like “Saw: The Book of the Movie” is just not suitable reading for anyone in a normal emotional state. Even I’d complain if that one popped up on my school’s library shelves.
That all got a lot more long-winded than I intended — basically, I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts. Should kids’ books reflect the real world, or provide optimistic escapism? Is it a teacher’s fault if a child reacts badly to a tricky text? Should parents/teachers be required to “police” their child/student’s reading… or is this wrong? Did you react badly to a book as a child? Whose “fault” was that? I’d love to hear what your thoughts are on this one, so get thee to the comments box!
Don’t forget The One Night Stanzas Store, my Etsy store, and their little sister, Edinburgh Vintage!
Tags: advice for young writers, publishing, real reading for kids, resources for young writers, young poets
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I think that this is a very interesting post, and as a parent and book enthusiast it has brought up many topics/arguments that I have been following for a while.
My daughter will be two in November and so far the books we read together are not very upsetting Goodnight Poppy Cat always has a good ending. But I think that what I said in that sentance is key “books we read together”.
My daughter always has two books read at bedtime by either me, or my husband, or both of us together. She often requests books to be read to her during the day. I am looking forward to introducing her to books I loved as a child, writers like CS Lewis, Philip Pulman, JK Rowling etc… But I definately plan to do it together, and when she is too adult for me to read to her, we will at least discuss the books.
My parents read to me every night, during school holidays my siblings and I had a chapter of a book read to us after every lunch time. When we were older they would give us newspaper articles to read which we then had to discuss at the dinner table. Ok my family is a little eccentric, and I can’t expect every family to do this. But my point is that reading is not an activity on its own. It is an activity that opens us up to a new world and new ideas and to read and discuss books, newspapers, graphic novels, anything with your children or as a family should be part of their social education. It is also a lovely bonding experience.
I’m not suprised the wee girl was upset by the book, I’m 30 and still get upset by the holocaust, however carefull discussion with the teacher and or parent on the subject matter would help the girl put the hollocaust within perspective, and give an opportunity to explore some of the more positive stories that have emerged from that time (Schindlers List etc…). We can’t just give a kid a book and hope it shuts them up for half an hour - although as a parent I can completely respect the frustration and sheer exhaustion that makes that an option. A good book should prompt questions, from both children and adults and hopefully they can explore the answers together.
Mairi
September 2nd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
My favourite books when I was 10/11 were by Judith Kerr and Michelle Magorian and the Judith Kerr ones in particular dealt (in part) with the Holocaust (most notably the When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit trilogy).
I’d say these books were really important in my understaning of the Holocaust etc and my current interest in Holocaust/German history/literature.
I’m sure I heard its recently been taken off the primary school syllabus which is a bit of a shock cause clearly its a hugely important historical event that children NEED to know about!
Although this case seems a little bizarre as you say, a teacher simply wouldn’t recommend a book they hadn’t read! Especially if it dealt with such serious issues!
My mum always bought my books that she thought I’d like but never stopped me reading anything at any point, I was terrified by those Point Horror books but if I wanted to buy them - she wouldn’t stop me!
I’m not sure why there’s a necessity to ‘police’ anybody’s reading! Surely if you’re emotionally affected by reading something…it’s a good thing? The girl in the first incident despite being upset, will now learn about the Holocaust so is actually getting educated…
I’m rambling now but, if children/students choose to read outside the curriculum they should be free to read whatever they want…
I think :)
September 2nd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Well, first off, this is very well written, Claire, and I agree with every point.
I don’t think I was ever told what books to read or not read by my mom- she was the reader in the house. But… I read most of what she had and there weren’t too many books that were “realistic”, let’s just say. But at an early age, I found Anne Frank and that was my start, on my own, of exploring more in-depth books, more realistic books. I also started writing then, too, to try and put my feelings down on paper about how these books made me feel. That helped.
I think some kids are just more mature than other kids- and there probably needs to be a bit more individual assessment in assigning books for class room reading. I still come back to, though, it’s the parent’s responsibility to raise their children in a well-rounded and in-depth way. Tell them about history, the good and the bad. They’ll be better off for it. Life is not a bowl of cherries all the time, but most kids think it is. Doesn’t the teacher have enough to do in the classroom besides teaching what they have to and not what the parents should be?
And aren’t kids seeing all kinds of awful, horrible things on the telly and computer these days? It’s about time then, they know what’s really going on in the world…
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I agree — I think this current trend in trying to “protect” children from everything is terrifying and extremely unhealthy. A slight tangent, but every time I hear/read about a parent praising ‘High School Musical’ as “wholesome entertainment for their kids” and the like, I want to smash things with a hammer!
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:03 pm
This article is incredibly insightful and on-point. Thanks. It has me thinking, so my comment is short… but, I wanted you to know that I’m grateful for the thoughtfulness. I’ll come back when I have more to say. Still thinking. :)
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Interesting topic! I think the key is for parents to communicate with their children and introduce them to various difficult or dark topics when they feel their child is able to handle it. I actually think that human beings come equipped with this kind of primal fire that runs off violence and scary things - how often do you see little toddlers lash out at each other, throwing toys and whatnot? It’s programmed in us to be quite destructive, I think, so by the same token, I think we have a mechanism for coping with the brutality of the world.
Personally, I was allowed to watch American Werewolf In London and other 18 certificate films as a ten year old, but in no way would I allow anybody to call that bad parenting, because my mother talked to me and listened to me, and if I said I wanted to watch a scary film on TV, she’d say “okay, we’ll give it a go” … and of course I’d end up covering my eyes and terrified to death, but at the same time I was absolutely THRILLED by it. Isn’t going to bed at night thinking some monster is hiding under the bed a valid part of childhood? I think fear has its place, it helps us grow, it toughens us, it teaches us.
On the subject of teaching something such as The Lovely Bones, it’s worth considering: is there EVER an age when subjects such as rape won’t effect us? Society has this idea that we reach 18 and we can just shrug off stories or films about murder and torture etc, so even if you want to protect your child, you can’t do it forever, and if you protect them too much, they’ll probably reach adulthood and have loads of issues coping with the world.
It’s similar to the argument of whether children should get sex education in schools, and if so at what age - my answer there is that equipping children with knowledge is 100% more effective and responsible than just leaving them clueless to work it out by themselves and probably get the wrong idea from other kids who don’t know what they’re talking about. The same goes for this book topic - communication is the key.
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:38 am
I think shielding a child from the ‘real world’ is far more damaging than being honest with them. There is no reason to talk down to a child, and certainly shielding them will ultimately lead them to a more difficult realization that the world isn’t as beautiful as their parents once told them it was.
Ever since I can remember, I always loved to read. No one else in my family reads…avidly. As a child I was never told ‘don’t read this’, BECAUSE children almost always will stay within their own reading level- and even if they see something ‘inappropriate’ on the bookshelf and decide to read it, I can almost guarantee they will lose interest before the 5th page. This happened to me, often, and I put those books down because I didn’t know what most of the words meant.
OK. So anyway, great post Miss Claire! XO
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:57 pm
I’ve enjoyed this topic a lot.
I’m also a teacher and I think your post, Claire, hits right at the nub of some difficult issues. But I think you also go on to find the balance that needs to be struck if we’re to avoid a) raising kids in a bubble and b) letting them enter into risky territory without being there to offer context / guidance / space for dialogue and discussion.
And there really is risky territory. I’ve an illustration that came to mind as I read all the above, from teaching last year. It’s made me a bit less extreme, in fact, in my default position as an anti-authoritarian who’d naturally recoil from ‘policing’ reading (along with Beth). I’m absolutely all for the ‘realism, violence and scary stuff’ too.
But last few years, I’ve been at a school in Midlothian and one movie that was a hit with the kids, particularly 1st & 2nd years (11-12 year olds) was Borat. They picked up on the one-liners and drafted them into their own vocabulary. But there was a massive problem. I haven’t seen the movie but I now know - all too well! - that he plays the anti-semite. Partly to expose other anti-semites of course, and ridicule them… Whatever, the kids didn’t get it. They just thought he had a funny face and crazy accent and heard him talking in derogatory terms about some folk called ‘Jews’. So, last year, regular terms of insult that passed between kids at school came to include: ‘You’re such a Jew’, ‘Stop bein a total Jew’, ‘Are you a Jew?’ ‘Ha ha, ya Jewish prick’… etc.
Where to even start explaining how wrong this is…? (Admittedly it might pass into ‘last year’s insult’ now, but who knows?) The kids don’t know what a Jew is, most of them - they’re 11 and there are no actual Jews in school for them to know. Also, they wouldn’t actually care, while something’s actually funny - that’s the power of comedy.
It was a bit like the also frequent use of the word ‘gay’ as a generalised term of abuse (e.g. ‘This is so gay’ / ‘books are gay’!). But worse, if possible, I thought, because they were missing out utterly on the most obvious act of hatred in human history… They don’t study Nazi Germany until age 14/15.
So, ‘policing’ literature (and films) is still out, for me, but I think all the comments, above, on the need for companionship, discussion, guidance and context* for kids who are reading (or watching) absolutely hit the nail on the head. That’s what is needed.
Otherwise, when these kids leave town and meet someone who’s Jewish, I can’t imagine they’re off to a very good start.
Other good points - Matt, the idea of BBFC classing an over-18/adult as someone now ‘grown up’ enough to be able to ’shrug off’ trauma / suffering … that’s very interesting and quite scary. I think it actually exposes what age certificates are somehow all about. Brings up interesting questions of staying sensitive and able to feel shock/pain/sympathy throughout life. Surely that’s the most valuable thing here…?
*I liked Mhairi’s story about family discussions on reading!