Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
Do you know what I think TV is better for kids than actual classic books. I read the classic stuff to my kids and they love it. Yet if it involves Dora or Fifi etc then they are more attentive. Is this wrong? No they are well developed characters, which is what we are always told to start with after all. They show great lessons and help the kids interact. I'd rather this than Enid Blyton.
Just look at Jacqueline Wilson and the Tracy Beaker books/tv shows for example.
I doubt that means TV is better for kids SilentTony. Reading requires brain function, where tv can be a very passive activity. Do you get the same thrill watching the tv as reading a book?. I certainly don't. Reading is an intellectual activity, difficult and frustrating for a young child, so being talked at instead of being talked with is the easier option for a maturing mind.
I was read Enid Blyton and Roald Dahl as a child, and when I have children, I will read them the same stories (even if Enid Blyton is unPC). I will also read them the likes of Treasure Island, Peter Pan and The Wizard of Oz.
Seventy years?. If it had been longer I would have said Robert Louis Stevenson. Philip Pullman is the obvious answer I suppose. I loved Jill Murphy's Worst Witch books when I was little, so I she has my vote.
No not at all. As all of us here will testify TV is a distraction. But today's children's TV is amazing. It is usually based around learning and reading. I was making a point that children prefer books about TV characters. They are still books. After all name a classic that you found as a kid before you knew of it on TV.
Yes sometimes I get the same feeling from TV and films as books.l Sure with a book I am inside a different world and living and breathing that story. Yet if TV or film is written, directed and acted well enough you can get a similar feeling. Not the same but who wants every experience to be the same?
Life on Mars, The Sopranos,Dr.Who etc. Would these be better on the page? No visuality is a huge part of there success. Do you think Harry Potter is so successful just because of the first book, or is it the movie tie in.
1. The afore mentioned Worst Witch (although the original film with Tim Curry was around when I was in First School, I hadn't seen it until some years later).
2. The Witches.
3. The BFG.
4. Matilda (I stole my sisters copy).
5. The Flour Babies (Anne Fine).
6. Elidor (Alan Garner).
7. The Little Vampire series.
I was born in 1981 and I would have read these pre 1991, which is before most of these were turned in series/movies.
I also read High Fidelity before it was a movie, Memoirs of a Geisha, and refusing to watch Eragon before I read the book.
If a movie comes out that is based on a novel, and it looks good, I refuse to see it before I have read the book.
As for Harry Potter, don't even talk to me about Harry Potter. Haven't read a single book, or seen a single film and proud (actually at work we have an 'we hate Harry Potter club'). God help any students at Stirling reading the new book, they might just find it in the University loch . . .
Yes, some of the programmes are good, and if it encourages children to read, good.
The difficulty is we don't make enough of our own kids progs- it's cheaper to buy the stuff from the states.
And quality suffers.
Not all kids are good at reading so tv is their preference more often. So you have to improve the quality of that stuff if you don't want generations of 'morons'-excuse the phrase it seemed the most appropriate.
My problem with SilentTony's line of argument is that the next logical step is, why publish anymore books?. Why just not write scripts straight to tv?.
When I started writing I wanted to write scripts, but I quickly realised using only dialogue has it's limits. What fascinates me is what isn't said but what is felt and thought, but how do you do that in a script?.
I'd read the Harry Potter series (to myself then my children) before the films came out and I think the scenes I'd imagined in my head were far better than the film versions. The films actually put me off, really.
However, having said that, Lord of the Rings was - for me - a bit of a struggle to get through at times. (I've already mentioned this last year on another thread somewhere and a Talkbacker said a lot of work had gone into the names - oh, I know but...) All those Mordors, Gondors, Saurons, Saramons, Aragons, Aragogs etc. just confused me. They headed East to Gwyndor then Gwandor, SW through the hills of RedDoor, Matador -aaaagh! I didn't know which way was up or who was who. The LOTR films clarified the people and the landscape.
But that hasn't answered the original question. Hmmm, don't know. Didn't have books when I was a kid so can't really comment. A couple of Aussie children's authors who put out some bl***y good books here are Morris Gleitzman and Paul Jennings - simply brilliant.
I agree with Island Girl about the Mordors, Gondors etc. And find it especially irritating when wannabe fantasy writers prolong the agony by inventing ever more ludicrous names. Why can't their ridiculous characters be called Marjorie or Bill like everyone else?
Not at all. I grew up with TV and still read books with a passion. I'm writing a novel now not a script or working in the TV industry. They are not mutually exclusive. I have two little kids. One nearly three the other nearly six. Both love TV. The programs the watch are fascinating and educational. The eldest has the Oxford Learning Tree at school so she has a constant supply of reading material. We also do bedtime stories and a lot of fairy tales etc. The youngest cannot read yet obviously being only two, but she walks around with a book constantly. Show kids good books and make that a part of their lives and the will love it. That does not mean no TV. In fact today's children's television encourages reading to a great degree. I should know I have to watch it.
ST raises a good point there about his two year old having a book now. Children who grow up without being exposed to books, or seeing books being read by the adults around them, do not find it easy to feel comfortable with them, they don't see the point in reading books. At least that is how it seems to me.
Is this the result of politicians and so called experts pushing their latest theory, that has such long lasting effects?
So, neil - "the valorous warrior, Bill, leapt through the tower window and swept the Princess Marjorie into his arms...."
Sorry, but I don't think that really works.
And as for a list of the ten best children's books of the last 70 years, it's almost impossible to choose. However, having said that, I'll leap in with:
Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff
The Borrowers by Mary Norton
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by CS Lewis
Falconer's Lure by Antonia Forest
The Wierdstone of Brisingamen by Alan Garner
Some authors, like Jaqueline Wilson, have a body of work it's almost impossible to choose one out of.
And it's such a subjective thing, too - if you knew the sales figures, that would show the most popular, but Falconer's Lure, for instance, was out of print for many years, so wouldn't show up in that way.
Tried to read them, couldn't get past chapter one. The writing style is flat, overwritten and seriously in need of a good editor (I'm not the only one who thinks so either).
"So, neil - "the valorous warrior, Bill, leapt through the tower window and swept the Princess Marjorie into his arms...."
Sorry, but I don't think that really works.*
I think it's quite charming.
Much better in fact than "the valorous warrior, Zardong, leapt through the tower window and swept the Princess Biltfring into his arms....".
But to fully appreciate the difference of course, an understanding of the phrase 'tongue in cheek' is necessary.
(smily face)
Actually, what really jars with me is when the writer starts off with, say, medieval style names and in the middle of all those, suddenly there's a 'Tracy' or 'Jason'.
I used to know someone who wrote Robin of Sherwood fan fiction, and she wrote a guide book of suitable names because she was so sick of seeing modern names in a medieval context.
While I agree that there is some very good children's tv about - and some great movies! - I still think it's sad when children prefer books that feature television characters. Firstly, it means that they no longer need to engage their imagination as telly has already shown them what that particular story-world looks like. Secondly, books written after the tv series are usually awful, with poor writing and contrived, sentimental plots. Fortunately my daughters never took to them but had an instinct for quality.
Stirling, no writer should ever condemn a book s/he has not read. The first three Harry Potters were hilarious, intelligent, innovative, well-written. After that, the quality declined rapidly.
But to the question - best children's books - those two lists contain some good stuff. I love Lauren Child's Lola & Charlie books (e.g. "I Will Never Not Ever Eat a Tomato" which is on the list); funny, great artwork, wonderfully creative use of language, and satisfying storylines.
Neil Gaiman's "The Wolves in the Walls" and "The Day I Swapped My Dad For Two Goldfish" are not listed, but also exquisite. Artwork by Dave McKean - superb. But my favourite picture book is still and will always be Maurice Sendak's "Where The Wild Things Are".
Are the Lola and Charlie story the same one as the BBC have been using? There have been a lot of stories and other activity type books to tie in with it.
The Charlie and Lola books are a good example. I had not heard of them until they appeared on CBeebies. My daughter loves the show so much that I have bought her a few of the books. So and example of TV working with books.
Also on the thought of it being an easy root as the children don't need their imagination to create the character pictures. Most kids books from pre-school up until about seven have illustrations. Parents are even advised to buy picture books as it helps kids to interact and become move involved with the story.
I guess anything that helps kids to read and continue to read has its merits.
I didn't realise that Charlie and Lola are on telly! In that case, I take it all back, as those books are not tv tie-ins. They were books first, and if the CBeebies series gets more children interested, fine.
On the other hand though, spare a thought for all those poor kids who only know the Disney Winnie-the-Pooh rather than the vastly superior A.A.Milne original...
I think the real difference is, as you say, where tv series have been made from the books already in existence.
My only exception would be the horrendous Tracy Beaker series. I'm sure the books were fine, but that series has not only been repeated so often that you get fed up of seeing it, but the attitude of Tracy can rub off onto impressionable children- I have personal experience of this- and I now won't let one of my boys watch it- the other two don't think much of it.
I wasn't condemning them. All I said was that I don't want to read them and never will. I read everything from Ian Rankin to Diane Setterfield to Jane Austen. If I don't like a writing style, I will not make it past chapter one.
My closest friend suffers from ADHD and she loves the books along with Buffy and the 'undead' (vampire chic-lit books) and as she put it:
"of course your not going to like them, you read books like 'The Woman In White', these books are written for children (she's quite intelligent for a girl with a learning disorder)".
Lets face it, if you're not going to like a book, you aren't going to waste time reading it, are you?.
Stirling: as Anyanka said, the first 3 HP books (which were written before the hype kicked in, and which won their popularity the old-fashioned way, by word of mouth) are, in my opinion, well written and impeccably well constructed. Book 4 has a cracking plot but was desperately in need of an editing job it never received. Most of Book 5 could happily have been omitted, but things improve in book 6.
IG and others: it was me who explained the names issue in LotR. Tolkien was a scholar of medieval European languages and all the names in Middle-Earth are constructed out of bits of those languages. Every syllable has a precise meaning. I agree it can make it hard to keep track of the story - and it gets even more complicated when you reach the names of the Elvish dynasties in the Silmarillion ;-)
Favourite children's books of the last 70 years? Difficult as the list will change from one day to another. I always leaned strongly towards the fantastical, so most of mine are fairytale or dark fiction. Off the top of my head the ones with the strongest resonances for me are probably:
Enid Blyton - Five Go to Smuggler's Top (easily the best of the Famous 5 series, also the first "proper" book I ever read and I was hooked from the first page)
John Gordon - The Giant Under the Snow (one of the best fantasies ever written, "magical realism" years before the concept was invented)
Nils-Olof Franzen - Agaton Sax and the League of Silent Exploders (the best *ever* title for a detective story, and remember ?Kenneth Williams reading these on Jackanory?)
Alan Garner - The Weirdstone of Brisingamen/The Moon of Gomrath (can't separate the two really)
Diana Wynne Jones - Fire and Hemlock (more pre-"magical realism", do you sense a theme here?)
Dr Seuss - There's a Wocket In My Pocket (this may have been my early introduction to silly rhyme!)
Beth Webb - The Dragons of Kilve (absolutely charming bedtime story stuff)
Antoine de Saint-Exupery - Le Petit Prince (an early introduction to satire. So poignant it still brings a tear to my eye!)
Michael Ende - Momo (to this day this is one of the creepiest books I've ever read)
Peter Dickinson - the Changes trilogy (speculative fiction long before it was known by that name - and more deeply creepy stuff!)
Charles M Schulz - Peanuts: A Golden Celebration (kids' stuff for adults really, an amazing social chronicle, as insightful as philosophy, and hysterically funny)
JK Rowling - Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone/Chamber of Secrets (so nyaaaah ;-))
There are a few omissions (still haven't started "His Dark Materials", for instance, and have never read any Jacqueline Wilson or Melvin Burgess). And if we'd been allowed to go further back I would also have had The Hobbit, Narnia, The Phoenix and the Carpet/The Enchanted Castle, and The Black Arrow.
Sorry, still not going to read them, and nothing anyone can say will change that. I mainly read crime novels or literary fiction. Why would I read fantasy when I know for a fact I don't like it?.
Great to find that there are other Edith Nesbit fans on here! One of the finest children's writers ever. 'Five Children and It' and 'The Children of Arden' are absolutely wonderful. Fascinating woman, too.
A few years ago, they made 'The Phoenix and the Carpet' into a television series; shortly after I found an awful tie-in book which retold the story, based on the tv version. Total sacrilege. All of Nesbit's wonderful turn of phrase had gone, along with any period atmosphere.
They showed an episode of "Phoenix and the Carpet" last night as well. Didn't get to see much of it.
I remember it was serialized back in the 70's on TV as well. I seem to remember that quite fondly, though any appreciation of its accuracy based on the book was probably lost on me at the time.
The 70s Nesbit serialisations were incredible. "The Phoenix and the Carpet" was mesmerising, and "The Enchanted Castle"... ooh, *shudders* It frightened the living you-know-whats out of me.
My generation were lucky to get Jackanory and Doctor Who. We HAD to read to enjoy a lot of fictional work! Mind you, there were always Lassie episodes at Saturday Morning Cinema. Yip dee doo.
The Wierdstone of Brisingamen by Alan Garner - Wow! I remember being read that at school before classes ended and was really taken with it. I bought myself a copy and still read it now and again at the age of 46!
Tom's Midnight Garden is another favourite of mine - and the Railway Children.
I drive my partner mad every Bank Holiday when the film comes on cos everything has to stop while I watch it.
"Daddy, my daddy"...That line gets me every time!
Don't do that, Courierjohn! Now I've got to get a hankie...
I've not seen any of the Nesbit tv adaptations. The special effects (or lack thereof) are too off-putting. Characters like the Psammead and the crotchety Phoenix are much stronger in my head than in any of the tv and screen versions. Same with Aslan the lion - he always disappoints when 'realised'. Best to stick with the books, always.
Ooooh Jackanory - Prunella Scales reading Bogwoppit by Ursula Moray Williams, Bernard Cribbins doing Arabel's Raven by Joan Aiken, the Littlenose stories, The Ogre Downstairs - those were the days (haze of rosy nostalgia) - Then there's Where the Wild Things Are (Sendak), Goggleyes (Anne Fine), Alan Garner's Elidor, The BFG, Wombat goes Walkabout, the Narnia books of course, The Hobbit (naturally!), Not Now Bernard by David McKee, There's No Such Thing as a Dragon by Jack Kent, RoBin McKinley's Beauty and my personal all time favourite Belinda Bear by CAM which I'm betting no one's ever heard of, but my Grannie used to read to me when I was little.
Comments
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1679972.ece
Just look at Jacqueline Wilson and the Tracy Beaker books/tv shows for example.
I was read Enid Blyton and Roald Dahl as a child, and when I have children, I will read them the same stories (even if Enid Blyton is unPC). I will also read them the likes of Treasure Island, Peter Pan and The Wizard of Oz.
Seventy years?. If it had been longer I would have said Robert Louis Stevenson. Philip Pullman is the obvious answer I suppose. I loved Jill Murphy's Worst Witch books when I was little, so I she has my vote.
No not at all. As all of us here will testify TV is a distraction. But today's children's TV is amazing. It is usually based around learning and reading. I was making a point that children prefer books about TV characters. They are still books. After all name a classic that you found as a kid before you knew of it on TV.
Yes sometimes I get the same feeling from TV and films as books.l Sure with a book I am inside a different world and living and breathing that story. Yet if TV or film is written, directed and acted well enough you can get a similar feeling. Not the same but who wants every experience to be the same?
Life on Mars, The Sopranos,Dr.Who etc. Would these be better on the page? No visuality is a huge part of there success. Do you think Harry Potter is so successful just because of the first book, or is it the movie tie in.
1. The afore mentioned Worst Witch (although the original film with Tim Curry was around when I was in First School, I hadn't seen it until some years later).
2. The Witches.
3. The BFG.
4. Matilda (I stole my sisters copy).
5. The Flour Babies (Anne Fine).
6. Elidor (Alan Garner).
7. The Little Vampire series.
I was born in 1981 and I would have read these pre 1991, which is before most of these were turned in series/movies.
I also read High Fidelity before it was a movie, Memoirs of a Geisha, and refusing to watch Eragon before I read the book.
If a movie comes out that is based on a novel, and it looks good, I refuse to see it before I have read the book.
As for Harry Potter, don't even talk to me about Harry Potter. Haven't read a single book, or seen a single film and proud (actually at work we have an 'we hate Harry Potter club'). God help any students at Stirling reading the new book, they might just find it in the University loch . . .
The difficulty is we don't make enough of our own kids progs- it's cheaper to buy the stuff from the states.
And quality suffers.
Not all kids are good at reading so tv is their preference more often. So you have to improve the quality of that stuff if you don't want generations of 'morons'-excuse the phrase it seemed the most appropriate.
My problem with SilentTony's line of argument is that the next logical step is, why publish anymore books?. Why just not write scripts straight to tv?.
When I started writing I wanted to write scripts, but I quickly realised using only dialogue has it's limits. What fascinates me is what isn't said but what is felt and thought, but how do you do that in a script?.
However, having said that, Lord of the Rings was - for me - a bit of a struggle to get through at times. (I've already mentioned this last year on another thread somewhere and a Talkbacker said a lot of work had gone into the names - oh, I know but...) All those Mordors, Gondors, Saurons, Saramons, Aragons, Aragogs etc. just confused me. They headed East to Gwyndor then Gwandor, SW through the hills of RedDoor, Matador -aaaagh! I didn't know which way was up or who was who. The LOTR films clarified the people and the landscape.
But that hasn't answered the original question. Hmmm, don't know. Didn't have books when I was a kid so can't really comment. A couple of Aussie children's authors who put out some bl***y good books here are Morris Gleitzman and Paul Jennings - simply brilliant.
Is this the result of politicians and so called experts pushing their latest theory, that has such long lasting effects?
Sorry, but I don't think that really works.
And as for a list of the ten best children's books of the last 70 years, it's almost impossible to choose. However, having said that, I'll leap in with:
Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff
The Borrowers by Mary Norton
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by CS Lewis
Falconer's Lure by Antonia Forest
The Wierdstone of Brisingamen by Alan Garner
Some authors, like Jaqueline Wilson, have a body of work it's almost impossible to choose one out of.
And it's such a subjective thing, too - if you knew the sales figures, that would show the most popular, but Falconer's Lure, for instance, was out of print for many years, so wouldn't show up in that way.
Sorry, but I don't think that really works.*
I think it's quite charming.
Much better in fact than "the valorous warrior, Zardong, leapt through the tower window and swept the Princess Biltfring into his arms....".
But to fully appreciate the difference of course, an understanding of the phrase 'tongue in cheek' is necessary.
Actually, what really jars with me is when the writer starts off with, say, medieval style names and in the middle of all those, suddenly there's a 'Tracy' or 'Jason'.
I used to know someone who wrote Robin of Sherwood fan fiction, and she wrote a guide book of suitable names because she was so sick of seeing modern names in a medieval context.
Stirling, no writer should ever condemn a book s/he has not read. The first three Harry Potters were hilarious, intelligent, innovative, well-written. After that, the quality declined rapidly.
But to the question - best children's books - those two lists contain some good stuff. I love Lauren Child's Lola & Charlie books (e.g. "I Will Never Not Ever Eat a Tomato" which is on the list); funny, great artwork, wonderfully creative use of language, and satisfying storylines.
Neil Gaiman's "The Wolves in the Walls" and "The Day I Swapped My Dad For Two Goldfish" are not listed, but also exquisite. Artwork by Dave McKean - superb. But my favourite picture book is still and will always be Maurice Sendak's "Where The Wild Things Are".
Also on the thought of it being an easy root as the children don't need their imagination to create the character pictures. Most kids books from pre-school up until about seven have illustrations. Parents are even advised to buy picture books as it helps kids to interact and become move involved with the story.
I guess anything that helps kids to read and continue to read has its merits.
On the other hand though, spare a thought for all those poor kids who only know the Disney Winnie-the-Pooh rather than the vastly superior A.A.Milne original...
My only exception would be the horrendous Tracy Beaker series. I'm sure the books were fine, but that series has not only been repeated so often that you get fed up of seeing it, but the attitude of Tracy can rub off onto impressionable children- I have personal experience of this- and I now won't let one of my boys watch it- the other two don't think much of it.
My closest friend suffers from ADHD and she loves the books along with Buffy and the 'undead' (vampire chic-lit books) and as she put it:
"of course your not going to like them, you read books like 'The Woman In White', these books are written for children (she's quite intelligent for a girl with a learning disorder)".
Lets face it, if you're not going to like a book, you aren't going to waste time reading it, are you?.
IG and others: it was me who explained the names issue in LotR. Tolkien was a scholar of medieval European languages and all the names in Middle-Earth are constructed out of bits of those languages. Every syllable has a precise meaning. I agree it can make it hard to keep track of the story - and it gets even more complicated when you reach the names of the Elvish dynasties in the Silmarillion ;-)
Favourite children's books of the last 70 years? Difficult as the list will change from one day to another. I always leaned strongly towards the fantastical, so most of mine are fairytale or dark fiction. Off the top of my head the ones with the strongest resonances for me are probably:
Enid Blyton - Five Go to Smuggler's Top (easily the best of the Famous 5 series, also the first "proper" book I ever read and I was hooked from the first page)
John Gordon - The Giant Under the Snow (one of the best fantasies ever written, "magical realism" years before the concept was invented)
Nils-Olof Franzen - Agaton Sax and the League of Silent Exploders (the best *ever* title for a detective story, and remember ?Kenneth Williams reading these on Jackanory?)
Alan Garner - The Weirdstone of Brisingamen/The Moon of Gomrath (can't separate the two really)
Diana Wynne Jones - Fire and Hemlock (more pre-"magical realism", do you sense a theme here?)
Dr Seuss - There's a Wocket In My Pocket (this may have been my early introduction to silly rhyme!)
Beth Webb - The Dragons of Kilve (absolutely charming bedtime story stuff)
Antoine de Saint-Exupery - Le Petit Prince (an early introduction to satire. So poignant it still brings a tear to my eye!)
Michael Ende - Momo (to this day this is one of the creepiest books I've ever read)
Peter Dickinson - the Changes trilogy (speculative fiction long before it was known by that name - and more deeply creepy stuff!)
Charles M Schulz - Peanuts: A Golden Celebration (kids' stuff for adults really, an amazing social chronicle, as insightful as philosophy, and hysterically funny)
JK Rowling - Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone/Chamber of Secrets (so nyaaaah ;-))
There are a few omissions (still haven't started "His Dark Materials", for instance, and have never read any Jacqueline Wilson or Melvin Burgess). And if we'd been allowed to go further back I would also have had The Hobbit, Narnia, The Phoenix and the Carpet/The Enchanted Castle, and The Black Arrow.
It was very interesting.
There's some excellent programmes hidden away there sometimes.
Rich
A few years ago, they made 'The Phoenix and the Carpet' into a television series; shortly after I found an awful tie-in book which retold the story, based on the tv version. Total sacrilege. All of Nesbit's wonderful turn of phrase had gone, along with any period atmosphere.
I remember it was serialized back in the 70's on TV as well. I seem to remember that quite fondly, though any appreciation of its accuracy based on the book was probably lost on me at the time.
Rich
Tom's Midnight Garden is another favourite of mine - and the Railway Children.
I drive my partner mad every Bank Holiday when the film comes on cos everything has to stop while I watch it.
"Daddy, my daddy"...That line gets me every time!
I've not seen any of the Nesbit tv adaptations. The special effects (or lack thereof) are too off-putting. Characters like the Psammead and the crotchety Phoenix are much stronger in my head than in any of the tv and screen versions. Same with Aslan the lion - he always disappoints when 'realised'. Best to stick with the books, always.