What I researched and why: In looking over the course materials, I noticed that, for me, they fell into two categories. There were stories that I wasn't familiar with because they came far before my time (Little King Pippin; A Dialogue Between Christ, Youth, and the Devil) and there were children's books that I, or members of my immediate family, was raised reading (Where the Wild Things Are; 17 Things I'm Not Allowed to Do). However, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer fell squarely in the middle of these two categories. As a child, I was familiar with the story (do we all remember Wishbone?) but the book wasn't something that I was actually exposed to until high school, when I read it in an English course. It's on the boundary between the two categories: something I can examine as an integral part of my childhood, and something I can examine as a part of history. The fact that I never really read the book but was familiar with the story and its characters intrigued me, particularly as American society today is accused of being "illiterate." Even if books are being steadily devalued, how much has their influence permeated into the new, technological culture that seems to be rising?
What I Found: I began by searching Digg, a popular social networking and news site. I found an interesting article about how the phrase "Tom Sawyer" is used in reference to websites who, essentially, get their users to do their dirty work for them (a la Aunt Polly's fence). However, a more relevant site talks about how Disney replaced their Tom Sawyer attraction with one dedicated to Pirates of the Caribbean. On the opposite side of the fence, I found several instances of Tom Sawyer in children's media in the last few years, including a children's cartoon and, of course, our beloved Jonathan Taylor Thomas.
My Interpretation: It seems to me that in all the to-do about literature's disappearance in the western world over the last few decades ignores one of the largest demographics affected by its loss: children. As a child, I was raised on Where the Wild Things Are, Winnie the Pooh, the Nancy Drew series, and many more terrific books geared toward young readers. However, with the exception of Harry Potter, the amount of reading children seem to be doing has been dropping dramatically. I've seen this in my own younger brothers; my 11-year-old brother spends approximately 8 hours a day in front of the television. A quote in an article on a different site about Disney's actions sums this transition up quite succinctly: "That's very valuable real estate [in the theme park], and if you ask a hundred kids who Jack Sparrow and Tom Sawyer are, what do you think they're going to say?"
The question I propose is whether it does more harm than good to adapt books to other forms of media rather than in their original form. As a child, one of the most aspects of reading a book was the fact that visually, you were forced to imagine the scene, rather than having it presented to you preformed. I feel that, particularly in Tom Sawyer, this removes a valuable part of the book; in addition, it takes away a lot of the subtleties of Tom's thinking process as well, which children grasp better than we may anticipate.
What I Think it Adds to Our Discussion: We've talked a lot about the question of what's appropriate to present to children: which version of Little Red Riding Hood is the least destructive? However, in a culture where literature and media are becoming integrated in the way I've presented, the question must be taken a step further: Is it enough to present an interpretation of the work, or do we need to stress presentation of the original? Here's an example of an issue to take into consideration: Tom Sawyer deals with a lot of very real, serious issues: sickness, death, and religion are just a few examples. Can we really get these points across to children in a 1.5 hour, animated, anthropomorphic TV special? Does presenting classic literature in this way undermine the value of the work itself? However, have we come too far to go back and encourage our children to read without alienating them from their culture?
6 comments:
Unfortunatly, I need to respectfully disagree with your statement that kids aren't reading as much anymore. I worked for a publising house this summer and even they are amazed there that, even with all the new kinds of media flooding kid's heads these days, books are still doing surprisedly well. For some reason, kids are still reading. While publishers are trying harder and harder to integrate other types of media, most obviously the internet, no marketing plans of theirs would go anywhere without a solid book that interests readers. I remember being surprised when i heard all this, but enough higher-ups at the company told us this to make me believe it is true. Also, about Harry Potter, in my time at the children's department, the people I was working with explained to me how great of a thing Harry Potter is for them, despite not being the house puitting him out. It turns out that kids get so excited for reading that after they buy Harry and read him in 36 hours (or less) they go back to the bookstores to get someting else to read-- so everybody wins out in the end.
Beat me to the punch on the Harry Potter success Sam, but at least I have a little more to add to the point of children reading more.
I have a friend who works at a Borders, and she's told me that manga (Japanese graphic novels) sell very well with children. She reported that a quite a few times she's seen children buying from at least 3 titles, and each individual volume of a title can be rather large (even if it is a longer comic book). Add in that each title can have quite the amount of volumes ("Bleach" has 21 at the moment), and that's a lot of reading.
Oh, I remember "Wishbone" too, Jocelyn. In fact, it's still on, just the reruns though. I think it's on at 5:30 on WQED/PBS.
You both make good points. I wasn't trying to imply that children are not reading at all anymore, but speaking from my own experience: the number of books I read as a child was vastly more numerous than the number of books my brothers and their friends read as kids, along with a lot of the children in their class. Also, the problem I was trying to point out was not so much that children are reading less, but that the image of children's entertainment has changed: books alone aren't being pushed as hard as they were when it wasn't so easy to get your hands on other kinds of entertainment (see the comment made by the guy from Disney World). There's no doubt that kids are still reading, but there's also the matter of the other mass media being introduced that has to be integrated into that experience as well. I was just wondering whether it's better for children to read the book or to get a television movie version (I know that in the case of most of the children I know, they'd choose the latter...but is that what's best?). There's also no arguing that Harry Potter revitalized literature for children. I think it is still an issue that should be considered, though.
Mark, it's funny that you mentioned manga, because that's just about all my youngest brother reads. I used to read manga as well. However, he doesn't read it on its own, he reads it as a supplement to the anime. This is the kind of integration I am talking about, and that's one of the main reasons I'm interested in it.
Thank you guys for your comments! :)
I thought that your post was very interesting and after reading the responses, the teacher-to-be in myself started thinking about the literature that children are reading in the elementary school setting and how much it differs from what I remember reading in school. The elementary classrooms which I have visited recently are void of good books. Because of standardized testing, most primary grades (specifically 1 - 3) are given little booklets to read in lieu of actual children's books. These "books" are typically written so that they introduce certain reading techniques at different levels. But my most important observation about these "books" was that they lack adventure, imagination... even good illustrations. Kids don't enjoy reading them because they are boring. So I think that if kids aren't reading as much it is because they don't know that books can be full of adventure... and if they are reading more (especially things like Harry Potter) it is because they realized the possibilities that good literature has.
This made me wonder about how much our readings of books are changed by how they are presented in society. For instance, I remember my dad handing me books and saying, "Read this. You'll love it. It's a classic." When books are presented as "classics" and we already have so many ideas about them and their characters, whether from television, movies, etc., how does that change how we read them? Do children really get everything out of Tom Sawyer that they would if they'd never heard of it? Would it be better or worse of a read if so much fame didn't accompany it? I'm not sure how much important this is, but I think it's really interesting to consider what is lost or gained when a book is considered a "classic".
I would also have to disagree that children are not reading as much as anymore. I would say if anything children are reading more today than ever before. There are new types of books out there that are appealing to children in different ways. I know that when my little cousins saw The Lion, The Witch and The Wadrobe, they wanted to read the book. After they read that specific book, they went on and read the entire series (which I think is seven books long.) I think by having movies based on books, children are reading more.
Post a Comment