The Things Children are Forced to Read!

I was always a sensitive kid, so I really couldn't stomach the sadder books. That said, I liked Where the Red Fern Grows even though it made me cry. I HATED Bridge to Terabithia. I think no child should have to read anything by Katherine Paterson I think she only writes things that are sure to traumatize children.

There are ways to touch on tough issues without resorting to the kind of pornographic sadness she indulges in.

i agree. Bridge to Terabithia was a very sad movie.

Perhaps the "sadder" books will traumatize children who are fortunate or sheltered enough to have escaped sorrow and pain in their young lives, but how many children fit this description? Not as many as we might hope, I fear. When I was a child, I preferred to read realistic fiction about the "tough issues" because they made me feel less alone.

But books that are too depressing can make you feel isolated as well, like your life is a mere shadow of what you're supposed to be living and feeling.

I had (maybe more than) my share of sadness as a child. The extra sadness was just...

Well, I was a worrier. I worried over everyone and everything. So imagine twice as much pain and sorrow. Because I knew that even though it was fiction...SOMEONE had gone through it.

You can learn the value of life without watching it be taken.

Odd, because I often found tragedy to be uplifting. I remember my mother being concerned about "Of Mice and Men" and in the end while I found it incredibly unfair, I was still happy for what the two of them shared as friends. You knew without Lennie that George wouldn't be the same, nor would he end up with this life he'd told Lennie he could have. It meant that Lennie mattered. No matter what, Lennie and George's dream of having that rabbit farm was something to the two of them whether it ever happened or not. To me, Lennie and George would have been far less as men had they not known each other.

Life can be horrible sometimes, but knowing that you'll get some good out of it seems comforting. If I'd only read Nancy Drew where the mysteries were always solved, the bad guys always caught and friends all right proper and true...well, I think that would have set me up for a whole slew of disappointments in the future.

I'm not sure I have a problem with sad. I believe I have a problem with sad-for-the-sake-of-sad.

But I also think that making kids read war stories like, say, Johnny Tremain, isn't needed, either. It didn't cause me trauma, I just didn't get into it.

Perhaps I'm just a fan for choice. If, as a teacher/school district (or board) you can decide on what "lessons" you'd like to discuss with the children in your class (and at this age it's almost always a lesson). Once you decide on the lesson, perhaps find a couple of books that touch on the idea. THEN talk to your kids about it.

#6 I agree with you, stephmo. And besides, one of the most important benefits of reading is to experience things vicariously that you wouldn't want or wouldn't dare to experience in reality, or so that you can learn the lessons without personally suffering the consequences. Catharsis and all that... I used to feel so relieved at the end of a sad story, because it DIDN'T happen to me. I think a big issue is age-appropriateness, because clearly not all children are ready for the same literature at the same time.

I loved Bridge to Terabithia. I read it when I was, I think, nine? And I just found it opened me up to so many things I'd never thought about. I agree that the ending was unexpected and completely depressing, but I also don't think the book would have had any impact on me at all if it weren't for that. It got me thinking about things. I liked that I was reading something that seemed a little more REAL than the babysitters club.

RE Phantasma:
I looooveed Johnny Tremain! I have had so many people tell me that I was crazy for liking it, because most people I've talked to hated it as well. I love historical fiction and thus adored this book. When I was little, I think I liked it mostly because the picture of Johnny Tremain on my copy was cute!

Where the Red Fern Grows was something I had always wanted to read. When I finally picked up a copy and started reading, I cried at the description of the old dog. Then I got into the story and the "Green" in me was immediately turned off when the character chops down the wonderful old tree in order to kill a raccoon. I realize this was written in a different time, but the destruction of a tree in order to kill an animal pissed me so bad that the book was pitched right into the trash.
BTW, I too loved Johnny Tremain and read it, in the 7th grade, probably 5 times in a row since I loved Revolutionary War stories.

I read Bridge to Terabithia when I was about eight and to this day, it's one of my favorite books.

Yes, it's sad. I cried for a whole afternoon when I finished reading it, but it is an amazingly powerful book. I disagree that it's "sad for the sake of being sad." It's sad because tragedy happens and Paterson didn't feel the need to treat children as if they aren't able to comprehend that fact.

It can be incredibly frustrating for a child who knows that the world is a little dark to be surrounded by adults telling them that it's not. Sure, I think different children are going to react differently. However, I think you just teach Children not to trust when adults lie to them and they know better.

I hated Brige to Teribethia, and I found A Little Princess both depressing and annoying, actually. And I really enjoyed the first bit of Charlotte's Web but I remember reading it in third grade and crying for quite a while because they killed Charlotte.

For me it was Homecoming/Dicey's Song by Cynthia Voigt. At age 11 I found them totally depressing and had no idea why anyone would ever recommend those to kids. I also refused to read anything but fantasy for about a year afterwards.

But as others here have said, different kids like and need different things in books.

#10 - I also loved Johnny Tremain! I enjoyed it so much that I went and bought my own copy a few years later.

My 5th grade teacher gathered a few of us who loved to read and recommended that we try Chesapeake and Centennial by James A Michener. Since we had just read Johnny Tremain and most of the year was addressed American history, I guess it made sense to her. My mom bought the books for me... and I spent YEARS trying to read them. Oh my, were they awful.

I loved Chesapeake -- but then again I read it as an adult, not in grade school, that would be tough...

I was mad at my 10-yr old for days because he didn't warn me Bridge to Teribethia was going to make me cry...

I was very lucky in that I wasn't forced to read any specific books in grade school, but rather, each month I was expected to choose a book, have it approved by my teacher, read it, and complete a book report. I was also very fortunate to have wonderful English/Literature teachers all through junior high school and high school. I was never forced to read anything, and my thoughts about books I read (no matter how negative) were always welcomed into classroom discussion. I think that being expected to make my own decisions and discuss opinions that differed from my own taught me more about life than some of the books I see on "required reading" lists ever could.

The only time I was ever asked to read a specific book was in the seventh grade. It was Johnny Tremain, and though I tried to read it, I hated it and couldn't finish it. The teacher was willing to work out a compromise. He expected me to explain in detail why I didn't like it, and once I was able to do that, choose another book. He said that the important thing was that I gave it a try. The problem was, I spent such a long time trying to read Johnny Tremain that I didn't have enough time left to read something else before my deadline. This experience colored my view of historical fiction for a long time.

(Edited to link title to work.)

allthesepieces - "The only time I was ever asked to read a specific book was in the seventh grade. It was Johnny Tremain, and though I tried to read it, I hated it and couldn't finish it. The teacher was willing to work out a compromise. He expected me to explain in detail why I didn't like it, and once I was able to do that, choose another book."

I'm curious, what didn't you like about Johnny Tremain?

Egads, it's been about fifteen years...

...I think what stands out to me most is the memory of really just not liking Johnny as a character. I couldn't relate to him and therefore couldn't force myself to care about what happened to him. I seem to also remember a writing style that meandered all over the place and severely irritated me in doing so. I was bored with having every little detail explained to me with little leeway to paint my own picture.

I'm sorry I don't have more "meat" to dish out, but it's been a long time and it's a book I never finished.

Ironically enough, I'm in the middle of Cold Mountain at present, and I'm rather enjoying it. It makes me wish I would've paid better attention in history classes after Johnny Tremain.

All this Johnny Tremain talk has moved it to the top of my list -- seeing as how I probably read it (mumbles the number) years ago, I don't remember a thing about it...

but I do remember Cold Mountain, really liked that one...

Isn't it funny how that works? Whenever I hear a crowd of people condemning a book, I'm usually that much more inclined to read it. I find some great books that way.

Hope you enjoy Johnny Tremain. Let us know what you think!

The Bride to Terabithia, sad? I thought it was hilarious. Who tries to cross a dinky bridge during a storm when there's a violent river running beneath? I remember muttering, "You've got to be kidding me" when that happened, and then, with a grin, trying to stifle my laughter. I read it when I was eight, I believe. Eight or nine. Didn't care for it.

I like, and have always liked, things that others consider depressing, but The Bridge to Terabithia was not depressing. It was amusing, just not in an intended way.

Also, if I could look at crime scene photographs and read the descriptions of crimes when I was eight, which I did, then I would think that a story about a girl who falls off a bridge and into a river wouldn't traumatise anyone. It's logical thinking, but apparently wishful as well. What a shame.

I read a lot from a lot of different genres, and really wasn't bothered by things people expected me to be bothered by. I didn't read Bridge to Terebithia, but I did read other books with kids dying and was okay.

It was To Kill a Mockingbird when I was ten or eleven that freaked me out. Loved the book, reread it twice before high school, but I always had to skip the really disturbing chapters - not the ones most people find problematic, though. The bit that gave me nightmares was the elderly neighbor who was addicted to morphine and had Scout come read to her to help her get through the withdrawal.

I'm super glad that I wasn't assigned Go Ask Alice until last year for an adolescent lit class, because I don't know if I could have handled it as a teenager. Though I had picked it up to read when I was twenty because I was wanting to read all the books I seemed to have missed in middle and high school. And was practically traumatized by it.

Still can't read fiction involving drug or alcohol addiction without having meltdowns, which is a shame. I have to be really careful about what I read, and I'm laying the blame on D.A.R.E. and To Kill a Mockingbird :P

A edition of Bridge to T. illustrated by Edward Gorey might have been apt. "L is for Leslie who fell off a rope..."

I thought Bridge to Terabithia was a classic. It teaches kids that not all good things can stay that way....depressing but so very true.
You also have to look at the 'fantasy' element of it, when I read it as a child that's what I most enjoyed, these two kids having their very own secret place.

>25 beckylynn: - You mean kids don't realise that already? They really need a book to tell them?

Well yeah, some kids don't realize that already. I'm not saying it's a large number, but they are out there.

>27 beckylynn: It's a lot bigger than you think. The idea that every 12 or 13 year old is somehow this world-weary individual fully familiar and absolutely understanding of what permanent loss means is rather sad.

Children are children. While some children do have a difficult go of things, most are busy growing up. Growing up is a lengthy process - heck, there are adults that really don't fully understand the idea of the temporary nature of things. It's not really a bad thing either.

I find it sad that we're now expecting children to be fully jaded. I got this brief vision of someone thinking they were an adult going, "oh please" at an eight-year-old that still believed in Santa.

Jaded is not healthy for anyone. It stifles and discourages anyone from actually admitting a very healthy, "I don't know" or even the occasional, "has anyone ever?" Books have always been a very safe way to peruse these waters.

Kes - boy, is it grim up north.

In grade school I was obliged to read The Bridge of San Lois Rey, The Red Pony, The Pearl and The Lord of the Flies - plus a few others I am completely blocking. It's a wonder I wasn't cured of reading.

This is a bit of a hijack, when I was in first grade we were forced to read the Dick and Jane books, Toronto in 1957. I almost didn't learn to read.

I LOVED the Dick and Jane books but I'm amazed now that they taught me how to read. Who can forget Spot?

I do recall observing that ambulatory canid...

Huh. I never even *saw* an actual Dick and Jane book. Always heard about them, never saw them.

When I was in grade school, I read a lot of BabySitters Club, Sweet Valley, that type of stuff. I was no stranger to "sad" books.

But what really got to me was Shade's Children. We were assigned it in the advanced reading group in 5th grade; I eventually got my mom to make the teacher switch me to a "lower" reading group because I refused to read any more of the book. I don't even remember what it's about. Just that one part where the kid has to cut/dig into his own skin to get the tracking device, chip, whatever out of his body. That totally freaked me out.

David Copperfield anybody?

>35 zasmine: A Tale of Two Cities made me fail freshman literature (high school, honors). I probably should have skimmed it, in retrospect.

Oh wow, Johnny Tremain, what memories. I should pick up a copy of it and re-read it. I remember absolutely loathing it, but in retrospect I suspect that had much more to do with the very long reading packet we were given along with it. The amount of questions wasn't the biggest issue, it was the minutia it asked you to describe and analyze that bored me to tears as a 6th grader. Sometimes I think it's not necessarily the book that is assigned that might put children off it (or even worse, off reading altogether), but the way it is taught.

>17 snarkhunting: Lucky you. We only really had a choice in much later years, or for summer reading (but even then it was from a list, albeit a decently sized list usually).

I don't remember many of the books we were assigned in school, as I usually didn't read them. I coasted by on synopses and common sense. I do remember hating The Red Badge of Courage and Inherit the Wind which were my "gifted" assignments in 4th grade.

As freshmen in high school we were required to read a certain number of pages per week, our choice of book. We had to give an oral book report on whatever we were reading each Friday. I once reported on Dolores Claiborne and my teacher was horrified. She wrote home to my mother that I should be picking "more appropriate" reading material and suggested my mother supervise me more closely. My wonderful mother wrote back to her to mind her own business as I was allowed to read anything I could get my hands on.

Funny thing is, I never particularly cared for Stephen King (with the exception of The Shining), but read Dolores Claiborne because the other freshmen girls couldn't get through it.