Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Recommended Resources What do you think of adaptations of classics?

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.