What is appropriate in childrens literature?

[zanz1bar]

So following an AIBU thread about Harry Potter. The Op says 'the themes and ideas in the books - particularly the later ones - are entirely inappropriate and largely incomprehensible for KS1 children.'

What are these themes and ideas?

With Snow White . Hansel and Gretel, and The Little Mermaid offering themes of child abuse, murder, warped ideas of beauty and women . I wonder what horrors Harry Potter could have?

If treated with intelligent and subtle compassion most themes and ideas are dealt with as common place in childrens literature?

If anything its hard to find a plain story with out an opening chapter of death and destruction of the parents and a harrowing tale of a childs journey through life.
Cest la vie?

Was discussing a similar thing yesterday with a friend. Our 9/10 year old DD's were discussing fairy tales and which was the scariest - they all thought Snow White! I pointed out that for long term abuse, it had to be Cinderella's stepmother. The neglect Harry Potter suffered at the hands of the Dursleys is nothing to what Cinders suffered. The witches in the fairy tales are more sinister than Voldemort as at least he never pretends to be friendly to trick/abduct children.

So who reads the original Grimm stories nowadays to their little children? Answer: no one. Grimm stories were written and made popular in a time when children were much more routinely and daily exposed to death, violence, disease, sex, pestilence and huge social injustices. We shield our modern young DC from most of that history nowadays -- and for good reasons.

I don't feel HP that inappropriate for scariness, but it's simply too complicated (after the first book) for my KS1-age children to follow properly!

Grimm's fairy tales pretty much tell children that really quite bad things happen all the time and to innocent children as well.

I think the issue with Harry Potter, is that, after 6 books you have an emotional "relationship" with the characters and so are more upset if one dies/is tortured etc.

In short fairy stories you can say "how awful" but there isn't the emotional investment there when something bad happens.

the original grimms tales are a bit blood guts and all, but then disney doesn't write out the evil step mother or sea witch completely.

Nearly all the classic childrens literature starts with chapter one death and desertion of parents followed by horrendous and dangerous adults or speaking animals out to get/kill small child.

I've got a collection of the Grimm tales in a fairly original form (including lots of not so famous ones) that I had as a child - recently re-read them and was shocked at the amount of blood, violence etc etc.

Will let my kids have them at some point but found it quite amusing what was considered appropriate then as compared to now

but harry potter books aren't really aimed at ks1 kids, are they

One of my favourite books as a young child was a collection of Hans Christian Anderson stories. They really are quite warped - full of loneliness, thwarted ambition, cruelty and the meek being crushed beneath the heel of the ruthless. I'll still be reading them to DS when he's old enough, though; as a child I found them fascinating and spent a lot of time pondering the emotional undercurrents.

DS is only little so I don't have any experience yet of treading the line between acceptable and not, but I am very wary of sanitising his world too much.

I really can't imagine any of the literature here being damaging to kids - nor have i seen any academic research suggesting that books can cause harm. The only danger is that you give children books that are too difficult, which puts them off reading. I basically think that kids should be allowed to read anything they want. I take a completely different line with visual media and the internet, where there is plenty of good evidence about harmful effects.

Neither Grimm nor HP had/have KS1 children as their target audience and certainly the later HP books are too complex, imho, for KS1 children, simply in terms of how big they get and the numbers of characters involved, let alone any 'issues' in there.

Having said that, all good literature has to be about conflict and things like Roald Dahl also have adults behaving badly etc. Exploring these issues in stories allows children a safe outlet for feelings of anger etc towards their parents, as well as letting them see a world beyond their own and preparing them for the idea that bad things can happen to good people etc.

It is why I also think that we should allow children to watch/read the news (selected items) - providing we are there to talk about it to them and help them to filter it.

I am very much against censoring books for children - again, providing you as the parent are there to talk to them about things, so they are not experiencing it in a vacuum.

Yes janeite, you have said what I wanted to say but couldn't

'I am very much against censoring books for children - again, providing you as the parent are there to talk to them about things, so they are not experiencing it in a vacuum.'

Exactly. Many things are acceptable if you do this. Jacqueline Wilson, for example.

Kids love dark stuff. They are drawn to it. Obviously you have to make the decision as to what is suitable for your own kid as they are all entirely different, but I don''t think you can deem things inappropriate.

I think it's me you're quoting in your OP, zanzibar. In general, I don't agree with censoring books for children. I do agree with the people who say that the danger is putting them off reading by giving them stuff that's too hard for them.

I think thought, that my original thread was more about the fact that we seem to want to ruch children on these days, and just because a child can read Harry Potter, in terms of decoding it, it doesn't mean they should. They will get so much more out of books intended for older children when they are the right age for them.

And also, I think I was talking about Harry Potter being used as some sort of benchmark - there are thousands of other books that aren't part of a billion dollar industry!

And people always cite Grimm's fairy Tales - I would be amazed if many children read the original versions any more. And as Miggsie says, the emotional investment is different.

Yes Seeker - agree entirely.

i also don't agree with censoring literature - we pretty much all read the fairy stories when we were little and survived.

also i think children can sometimes seperate reality from fantasy more easily as long as its packaged in the right way

that said...rumplestiltskin gave me nightmares!

It was 'The Red Shoes' that gave me nightmares!

A lot of the books I read as a child were inherited from my mother/uncles and my grandfather. Those from my mothers era still read pretty much OK, although are rather dated (think Swallows and Amazons and Silver Snaffles). The ones from my Grandfather's generation were either indescribably grim (Brothers Grim, Hans Christian Anderson) or incredibly twee (The Cuckoo Clock, by Mrs Molesworth). Beatrix Potter manages both!

The books actually published when I was a child seem to have dated worse than the earlier ones, but I think that is probably because only the 'classics' actually survived from earlier generations.

My DS enjoyed Swallows and Amazons, but on the whole, I think modern children's books are far better, as well as more relevant to modern children. However, after I started reading 'Bridge to Terebithia' to DS, then aged 8, without reading it to myself first (the heroine dies) I was much more careful about vetting stuff first. That said, DS went back to Bridge to Terebithia and read it to himself, so it was obviously meeting some need.

Where I agonise is when stories are still very much part of our cultural history, yet the originals are so gruesome or violent that they are unacceptable in a modern context. Still muddling through with that one, although as DS gets older, he gets a lot more freedom choosing his own reading matter.

Incidentally, the only restriction I put on Harry Potter was that he had to read the book before he was allowed to see the film. The later books are so turgid it has pretty much self regulated!

neversaydie - don't blame you about bridge to terabithia - saw that at the cinema - bf and i cried our eyes out but her 9 year old dd was fine and said 'don't worry, its not real!'

see now i've thought about it properly it was the snow queen that affected me the most...and animals of farthing wood

funny how much more emotive books you read as a child are - can't remeber feeling that strongly about any films/tv

HopeForTheBest, that BP story about the kitten being rolled up in dough was my absolute favourite thing when I was very small. Every time my mum took us to the library I would straightaway seek it out and read it over and over again.

Cyteen reveals her warped personality to all.

Wonders what own childhood-reading would reveal about her - probably an extremely high interest level for food (The Famous Five, Malory Towers etc all seemed to totally revolve around food). Oh gosh and I soooo wanted a tuck box...and a lacrosse stick (have never seen a lacrosse stick..I clearly move in the wrong circles).

Ha ha I don't know what was so fascinating about it, especially since I was/am a total cat lover and was always bugging mum to get us a kitten...pretty sure not for pastry-rolling purposes though.

DS and I both sobbed through the chapter where the girl in Bridge to Terebithia died! That said, it was an excellent book, and he got a lot out of it.

My girlhood reading was largely horsey - and mercifully long out of print. Then I discovered science fiction and never really looked back.

cyteen - tom kitten!

neversaydie - jackie, jill and jinny? aww i miss the pony books