Ewww, fantasy is bad! Won't you think of the Children?

[svenlind]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Thank goodness none of his examples of appropriate, "traditional" authors ever wrote any works that contained any of that nonsense.

Frankenstein
A Christmas Carol
A Midsummer Night's Dream
The Tempest
Ode to a Nightingale

I have just downloaded Masters of Gothic Horror from Delphi Classics (It is free)

This is the table of contents:

THE MYSTERIES OF UDOLPHO by Ann Radcliffe
FRANKENSTEIN by Mary Shelley
LA BELLE DAME SANS MERCI by John Keats
THE VAMPYRE by Henry Colburn
THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF USHER by Edgar Allan Poe
WUTHERING HEIGHTS by Emily Brontë (sic!)
THE DOOM OF THE GRIFFITHS by Elizabeth Gaskell
THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE by Robert Louis Stevenson
THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD by Charles Dickens
THE GREAT GOD PAN by Arthur Machen
THE BOARDED WINDOW by Ambrose Bierce
THE YELLOW SIGN by Robert W. Chambers
THE WILLOWS by Algernon Blackwood
UNCLE SILAS by Sheridan Le Fanu
DRACULA by Bram Stoker

Certainly all great writers of classical literature.

Dracula really frightened me as a young boy.. But I still loved it.

[darryl]

Thanks @svenlind. I've just downloaded the ebook as well. Even though I've read most of them its great to have them in one place. As a kid I loved Dracula. Scary but pleasantly so. I also liked the Fall of the House of Usher. And not included, though the author is represented, is Carmilla.

As a Child I would have hated being told what to read and what not to, and likely would have gone out of my way to read anything forbidden. I find the position of this man ludicrous and hypocritical. My view is that whilst those few children who absolutely love reading will do so widely in any event, nothing is more sure to kill the reading bug in those children not so inclined than a force fed diet of classics and poetry.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by svenlind

IDracula really frightened me as a young boy.. But I still loved it.

The idea of Dracula being scary is funny. I actually found it boring.

[JSWolf]

When I was young, I did read The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. I've read other books that some might have considered above the reading level for my age. I read the first Thomas Covenant series when I was 15.

I don't see how these books did any harm. The only harm these books could do maybe is if the person reading them is unable to tell the difference between reality and fiction.

When in school, I didn't like a lot of what we had to read. I read what I wanted for pleasure. If I was not allowed to do so, I would not be reading like I do now.

The problem with schools is that they still use books from the too far distant past that are irrelevant to today. They way they are written isn't how books are written now. I still think teaching Shakespeare is a wast of time and not good for the kids. Pick books that are written that kids can understand. Pick books that are relevant to today's society. Don't stick with those books written in a way that turns kids off to reading. I read some Shakespeare in school and I hated it. We need to encourage kids, not force them to read books that will not help them to want to read.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I still think teaching Shakespeare is a wast of time and not good for the kids. Pick books that are written that kids can understand. Pick books that are relevant to today's society. Don't stick with those books written in a way that turns kids off to reading. I read some Shakespeare in school and I hated it.

It depends on the teacher. My advanced english class in 11th grade covered Hamlet stretched over a whole semester. The beauty of it is that you can't understand it just by reading it once. Maybe it is different if you already are a native english speaker.

[DiapDealer]

For the record: I have no problem with people wanting to be cautious of what their children read (though I'm thankful my own parents placed no such restrictions on me). Nor do I blame anyone for preferring "classic" literature to modern genre fiction--I myself, prefer a steady mix of both. I'm just scoffing at the idea that limiting children to classic, traditional literature/poetry will somehow keep them safe from the mystical, dark, fantastical, graphic, brain-controlling, addictive themes that they seem to think only exist in popular, modern fantasy.

I'm also of the opinion that in this case: "damaging the sensitive, subconscious brains of young children" is nothing but code-speak for, "producing children who think differently than (and independently from) their elders."

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The problem with schools is that they still use books from the too far distant past that are irrelevant to today. They way they are written isn't how books are written now. I still think teaching Shakespeare is a wast of time and not good for the kids. Pick books that are written that kids can understand. Pick books that are relevant to today's society. Don't stick with those books written in a way that turns kids off to reading. I read some Shakespeare in school and I hated it. We need to encourage kids, not force them to read books that will not help them to want to read.

By all means children should be encouraged to read for pleasure (and the great thing about books like "Harry Potter" is that they got children reading for pleasure, who would not otherwise have done so), but I also think it's important that they should be taught great literature by authors like Dickens and Shakespeare, because that's (for British people, at least) an important part of our cultural heritage. Whether it's boring or exciting is entirely down to the way that it's taught; I was fortunate to have a good English teacher who really brought it to life for us. Shakespeare, being a playwright, should of course be performed, not simply read out of a book. He is one of (many would say "the") greatest authors in the English language. For older children not to be exposed to his work because it's "too difficult" is a cop-out. His stories are timeless.

Neither Dickens nor Shakespeare wrote for children, though, so they should be taught at an appropriate age.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Neither Dickens nor Shakespeare wrote for children, though, so they should be taught at an appropriate age.

Shakespeare didn't write for anyone but the actors/directors of the plays (in terms of who was intended to be the reading audience). My child has so far very much enjoyed Shakespeare's stories in the form of the stories rewritten in modern English for children, manga (with the original language), and movies - both original-language movies and varying loose modern adaptations. There are many ways of teaching/exposing children to Shakespeare.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by meeera

Shakespeare didn't write for anyone but the actors/directors of the plays (in terms of who was intended to be the reading audience). My child has so far very much enjoyed Shakespeare's stories in the form of the stories rewritten in modern English for children, manga (with the original language), and movies - both original-language movies and varying loose modern adaptations. There are many ways of teaching/exposing children to Shakespeare.

Modern language Shakespeare would be so much better. I hated Shakespeare in school because I got nothing out of it because of the language. It was something I felt was a complete waste of time.

I disagree about reading books just because they might be history. The problem is that kids need to read books that work for the class, is more modern, and more relevant to their lives.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Modern language Shakespeare would be so much better. I hated Shakespeare in school because I got nothing out of it because of the language. It was something I felt was a complete waste of time.

It sounds as if you were unfortunate enough to have a poor teacher. The language is the beauty of it. Make it "modern" and you've lost that. It is not difficult to understand, but you do need to have a good teacher. It's a sad day if we avoid teaching something because it's "difficult".

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I think Shelley referred to the poet, not his more famous wife.

Frankenstein will be remembered long after he is a mere footnote in her bio.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The idea of Dracula being scary is funny. I actually found it boring.

It takes a vivid imagination to be scared by Dracula.
Or any horror book.

To be honest, I found SHAMBLEAU more impressive.
The modern narrative style fitted the theme better than Stoker's epistolary structure.
(I read them both around the same time. Both good but SHAMBLEAU was creepier.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Frankenstein will be remembered long after he is a mere footnote in her bio.

Mary Shelley may well be more famous than her husband in popular culture, but Percy Bysshe Shelley is one of the greats of the English Romantic movement, and will surely be remembered in the field of English literature as long as his contemporaries like Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge and Byron.

[howyoudoin]

This is a false dichotomy, isn't it?

No reason why kids can't be taught Shakespeare and read fantasy stories.

As for the claims of contemporary fiction being 'sensational'.....has the principal actually even read Shakespeare??? Shakespeare was a playwright and the master of sensationalism to put bums on the seats. Mistresses, ghosts, witches, suicides, assasinations, incest...you name it he employed it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

This is a false dichotomy, isn't it?

No reason why kids can't be taught Shakespeare and read fantasy stories.

Precisely the point I was making!

As for the claims of contemporary fiction being 'sensational'.....has the principal actually even read Shakespeare??? Shakespeare was a playwright and the master of sensationalism to put bums on the seats. Mistresses, ghosts, witches, suicides, assasinations, incest...you name it he employed it.

Exactly. And does anyone think that plays like "The Tempest" or "A Midsummer Night's Dream" are anything other than fantasies? Just as "Macbeth" is a gore-spattered horror-fest in the best tradition of Hammer Horror (and the little-performed "Titus Andronicus" even more so!)