I mean the ones that are rewritten for children and illustrated. I was thinking I'd pass on these for my kids and just have them read the real books, but DD found some at the library and is reading them obsessively. I guess we're embracing the adaptations for now, so a couple questions:

1. Does anybody have a recommendation for a publisher that does really good adaptations of classics? She's reading Calico Illustrated Classics right now but I'm not sure how the quality stacks up against others.

2. If your kid got interested in this type of book, did you find they were more or less likely to want to read the real book later?

Well, I avoid them, because I'm a snob like that. But if my kids became independently interested, I certainly wouldn't forbid them. I will say that my DD read the adapted Anne of Green Gables at school in 2nd grade, and--this is one data point--she has not been interested in the original.

When children are in high school they can read Kaplan SAT Score-Raising Classics .

we've done them backwards - we've read the originals aloud, and then DD5 has been reading the adaptations on her own because she enjoys the plot/characters so much. she definitely prefers the language of the originals and cannot wait to move on to reading them herself.

Exactly. I did try to discourage her from getting the first one she wanted (Kidnapped) but she loved it and keeps finding others so I figured it couldn't be any worse than last year's obsession, which was those wretched fairy books.

Oh, the cursed fairy books. In K, DD read EVERY SINGLE ONE that the library had, which at the time was something like 56 or something (I'm sure it's more now). At least I didn't have to read them to her! (Later, she read every single Warriors book the library had. Now she is rereading the Harry Potter series for something like the 7th time...I have a rule that she has to read something other than HP for 1/2 hour a day, though she can read HP all day long for the rest of the day if she wants.)

I'm so glad the "wretched fairy books" either aren't in our library or aren't where DD can find them. At least, she hasn't yet. I don't know what they are, but they sound like something that would be banned from our house if I did.

We just finished The Wizard of Oz, in its original version. I had to go through two versions side by side to make sure which one to check out -- one had lots of pictures (which were downright frightening, BTW), but I didn't think it was going to have all the words, and sure enough, it didn't. I don't like adaptations, because (like ultramarina) I'm a snob about that.

DS(YS)11 devoured every book he could get his hands on VERY early. He wanted to read the classics, and I let him read the adaptations. He thoroughly enjoyed many of those stories and now has chosen to read many/most of the unabridged versions of those same classics. He has become a snob about reading anything abridged because he says the original versions are so much better. Reading a kid's version hasn't prevented them from wanting to read the original. It's actually been the opposite for us.

I wasn't sure whether it was a good or bad thing several years ago either, but both my boys seem to like reading books they enjoy over and over anyway. (DS claims he read the entire HP series at least 20-something times).

I just asked DS and he would recommend "Great Illustrated Classics" series published by Playmore/Waldman. In that series, he recalls liking Ivanhoe, Three Musketeers, Call of the Wild, The Man in the Iron Mask, Legend of Sleepy Hollow, and Journey to the Center of the Earth. He also said the "Classic Starts" series from Sterling was better, but says it's harder and without illustration. He remembers reading that version of White Fang.

HTH

Thanks! Our library has both of these series as well.

Good call.

I don't like them because the "language " in the originals is an integral reason why the books are classics. I've read a few classics to my six hear old, but only what he will sit through. So far I have read aloud much of the Little House series, Peter Pan, the Wizard of Oz, and we are near to finishing the first Alice in Wonderland. Next is probably A Little Princess or the Secret Garden.

I've found that his ear quickly adjusts to the writing style, even the flowery stuff, and he quickly becomes involved in the story.

Agree with previous posters- if my son became independently interested, I wouldn't say no. I've found out that it's a mistake to direct his reading choices. Right now, he basically only wants to read comic books and graphic novels. It's a bit maddening, but when I tried to redirect him, he rebelled. I spoke with my grandma who said "well, he's reading for enjoyment and his mother is telling him what to enjoy. I'd get mad too."

When I was a kid, my Dad had an old stack of Classics Illustrated, which are/were classics rewritten in comic book/graphic novel form. I guess they're out of print, which is too bad, because some of the books are ones I would never ever have waded through in their original form, but the stories were a lot of fun and some of the illustrations were very vivid and stick in my mind today (e.g., the Fall of the House of Usher, the Pit and the Pendulum, Pitcairn's Island). Here's the Wikipedia entry on them. I did get a used one on Amazon for about $12 awhile ago, so pretty pricey, but maybe somebody will start printing them again??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classics_Illustrated

Ha!

I guess I shouldn't say "banned", since we actually have Captain Underpants and Junie B. Jones books, but those are both on the list of "no, I'm not reading that to you for a bedtime story -- if you want that, you have to read it yourself." That's where the wretched fairies would be. Along with the adaptations that wreck all the classics. And I really do like fairies and magic.

I tolerated those 'fairy books' (just barely) too. Luckily it was a phase that DD passed through quickly - there were a finite number of them and she went through them like a hot knife through butter almost like consuming mental popcorn (no positive nutritional effect but felt good at the time).

I consider the Hobbit a classic too and DD loved it. I haven't managed to get her into the LoR books yet but I have plenty of time. A copy of the Burton translation of 1001 nights was on sale at Barnes and Noble's so DD is enjoying dipping into that right now- I consider these classics too especially because of the archaic English used.

We have read DD some unabridged classics that she has then read the adaptations of. And, in at least one case she has read an adaptation which then prompted her to read the original works. I don't think she would be gobbling up the boxcar children had she not read an easy reader adaptation about the kids first.

I think DD spent 2.5 months on fairy books. After reading about 70 she discovered the special editions which are roughly three times bigger and could not go back to the baby ones. That was the trick. Thankfully, she read 5 or so other books for each fairy book just because I could not keep up with the demand (and they had to be in order)--although, this was sometimes by design.

That was it. Done with fairy books at 4.5.

It is funny because I have been actively avoiding Junie B. Jones. It just seemed too mature for a not yet kindergartner. I was hesitant to let her start Ivy + Bean and Judy Moody, but they seemed better. Am I wrong?

My son is too young for this to be an issue for us yet, but my answer is that it depends. If your child is mature enough to handle the original, get the original. If too sensitive for the original, the abridged version may be a good start. If it is an abridged classic verses a Cosmopolitan magazine, I would prefer the abridged classic in my house. I read a number of abridged classics as a kid and once I read the original, I was hooked and didn't go back to the abridged versions. I did seek out more originals from some of the abridged ones I had already enjoyed.

I haven't read any Judy Moody but I can say Ivy & Bean are very, very naughty. Also Junie B. Jones is in kindergarten and I think Ivy & Bean are 3rd graders.

Oops. I had no idea about Ivy and Bean. I thought the synopsis and pictures sounded/looked darling. I know she was talking about the tricks and magic spells after reading a few. I will look at Junie B. Jones a little closer next time I'm at the library. Thanks.

Ivy and Bean are sort of bitchy little children and I'm not a huge fan. Judy Moody seems better-natured, though I have to admit I really haven't read them per se. (Ivy and Bean was read aloud here and there to DS5--DD9 picked up the books in 2nd grade when all her friends were reading them.) Junie B. I refused to read aloud, but allowed DD to read with the caveat that she knew I thought they were kind of awful.

This is where I admit I am awful at prereading this stuff. I just cannot read these easy chapter books. And, DD likes to go off in a corner and read by herself. I have been relying a lot on here-say and pictures.

DD is also outgrowing Henry and Mudge and Mr. Putter and all their friends (*sniff* I will miss them!) She recently started a series called "Heidi Heckelbeck." It seems pretty good, although she's definitely not completely innocent. I like it more than Junie B. Jones, anyway. (I've not read any of the Fairy books, so I can't comment.)

I seem to recall the Horrible Harry books being pretty decent, although it's been a couple of years since I looked at one.

They probably are the least-worst option. They're dreadful for adults to have to read, but they're really not bad for kids. They were absolutely the switch that got DD9 reading when she was 5. From an adult's point of view, the biggest problem with them is that they're all the same book. Fairy is missing; Jack Frost has her; girls find clue; girls find fairy. Rinse, repeat.

Magic Tree House books are also not much fun for adults, but some kids turn on to them and love them, so that's another option. DS5 has been getting into comic books lately - Daniel Boom and Knights of the Lunch Table.

They're not evil or anything. They're just dreadfully inane and very..factory-produced. I'd probably consider them more harmless than Junie B. or Ivy and Bean, because there are no obnoxious attitudes, although they do play into the girly-princess-pinky-pretty stuff. I think DD built a lot of reading fluency with them, so there's that.

I agree that MTH is another option at this reading stage. A to Z Mysteries? I have other recs for young fluent readers in terms of age-appropriateness, but it depends on fluency.

Perhaps I'm the only one who frequents used book sales and buys vintage books?

As someone who grew up loving stories of the "olden days", I enjoyed books that were, well....old. I still do.

Would you consider something like the The Bobbsey Twins or Bunny Brown?
Both by By Laura Lee Hope. You may want to check into her other works as well. I've found them online through ebay and in used book sales, "Friend of the Library" sales, and in antique stores.

It would be out of the norm for sure, but would open some discussion about history.

Ametrine, thanks for mentioning Laure Lee Hope - my dd loves the Bobbsey Twins (so did I when I was a child!)... I hadn't thought of looking for other works by her!

polarbear

You're welcome. My mom introduced the Bobbsey twins to me prior to my interest in Nancy Drew.

I just happen to have three Junior Classics for Young Readers (Dalmatian Press): The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Time Machine and Frankenstein sitting right here beside the computer.

My son just got interested in and read the original and full Wizard of Oz and was asking about other classics. These were on the shelf for some reason (I used to homeschool my older son and find all sorts of stuff that I have no recall of purchasing but I must have.)

I think he is going to skim the Junior Classic version of Time Machine and see if he wants to read the full version. I think Frankenstein and Jekyll/Hyde would be a bit much unabridged/retold. He was very vocal about wanting the original versions and not the kid versions.

Another thing that the blasted fairies have going for them is that the artwork (both the fairies and the girls) shows them shaped like little girls, not Loni Anderson (yes, I'm looking at you, Disney Fairies). From the covers, it looks like Kate the Royal Wedding Fairy might have a bit of a figure, but I guess I can forgive that, all things considered. I think balancing them with read-alouds with rich language is a good plan.

DD actually likes graphic novels of books, I think because she just like graphic novels. Right now she's reading manga Much Ado about nothing. I like that most graphic novels we've found keep most of the language. I did order the graphic A Wrinkle in Time from the library because of that, though I hope it doesn't spoil the fun of L'Engle for her in the long run.

The fairy books are inane and repetitive but generally good messages, for which I am grateful what with all the snotty kids in books. I've found plenty of other fairy books (DD would only read fantasy for a long while) but they all have the mean girl stereotype the heroine is up against. Bah.

Here are some of the easy chapter books she's been into: Fairy Chronicles, Fairy Realm, Clementine, Dick King Smith's Sophie series, Betsy-Tacy, Daisy Dawkins, the magic ballet slippers, the jewel princesses, this side of magic, Airy Fairy, Heidi Heckelbeck, mermaid SOS, and then graphic novels like Zita and Courageous Princess.