Inappropriate reading book (in my opinion)

Ames

meritaten wrote: »

If you honestly don't understand why parents think their kids grow up fast enough these days, without having adult 'issues' forced into their minds at primary school age...............I despair. No wonder some 11-12 years behave like mini adults - and not in a nice way.


I am all for broadening childrens minds and horizons - but, does it HAVE to be done with all this drama and angst? The world can be a beautiful wonderful place - what's wrong with exploring that side of it while young? the magic then stays with you while you learn about the darker seamier side to life.

We did a project on WW2 in primary school, including the basics about the holocaust, gas chambers etc. I think the Boy in the Striped Pyjamas would have been useful to read then, although the historical inaccuracies would have to be pointed out.

pathtofreedom

I wasn't allowed to watch soaps, even children type ones like biker grove or grange hill growing up. Also I was kept away from the news and papers, I wasn't allowed books like Judy Bloom etc either.

This has had a big impact on my life and made going to uni a lot harder as I was very unaware of how the real world worked, and got stung a lot of different ways which could have been avoided by not growing up in a bubble. It means now I still struggle to trust people and have problems making friends or being social, as I was the weird one at school as I wasn't allowed to do anything other children did, so the few friends I have now are a lot older than me as I don't have common interests or frames of reference as people my own age.

meritaten

Jagraf wrote: »

But you could say that about an immature 15 year old too.

Yes I could. and what is wrong about that? being 'forced' to read at a level you are not comfortable with can put you off reading - and to me that is a crime. Adults take for granted being able to 'choose' what they read - why force books on kids they are uncomfortable with or have no interest in?

I was a 'voracious' reader and at nine or so graduated to Dads stash of books - I read Reach for the Sky, To Kill A Mockingbird and Anne Franks Diary - and others my dad probably never dreamed I would choose. I have to say that Anne Franks diary was above my head on some levels - I could read it easily and understood it on a superficial level - it was only re-reading it as an ADULT I really understood the 'significance' and 'horror' of it.

Jagraf

meritaten wrote: »

Yes I could. and what is wrong about that? being 'forced' to read at a level you are not comfortable with can put you off reading - and to me that is a crime. Adults take for granted being able to 'choose' what they read - why force books on kids they are uncomfortable with or have no interest in?

I was a 'voracious' reader and at nine or so graduated to Dads stash of books - I read Reach for the Sky, To Kill A Mockingbird and Anne Franks Diary - and others my dad probably never dreamed I would choose. I have to say that Anne Franks diary was above my head on some levels - I could read it easily and understood it on a superficial level - it was only re-reading it as an ADULT I really understood the 'significance' and 'horror' of it.

What is your take on, say, GCSE English literature? Books are pulled apart to the point of exhaustion. Should we make literature an option in schools rather than a core subject? (Honest question)

Mojisola

meritaten wrote: »

Yes I could. and what is wrong about that? being 'forced' to read at a level you are not comfortable with can put you off reading - and to me that is a crime. Adults take for granted being able to 'choose' what they read - why force books on kids they are uncomfortable with or have no interest in?

I was a 'voracious' reader and at nine or so graduated to Dads stash of books - I read Reach for the Sky, To Kill A Mockingbird and Anne Franks Diary - and others my dad probably never dreamed I would choose. I have to say that Anne Franks diary was above my head on some levels - I could read it easily and understood it on a superficial level - it was only re-reading it as an ADULT I really understood the 'significance' and 'horror' of it.

Agree with all this. My experience was similar.

Looking back now, I was taking adult books from the library before I was officially old enough and some of the adult themes went straight over my head - I only understood them when I reread the books later on.

Saying that, the subjects didn't upset me. Children develop emotionally at different rates and, if a child is upset by a book, I don't think he/she should be forced to read it.

Parents need to be open about what's going on in the world and willing to talk with their children when the subjects are brought up (and I know many parents don't do this) so that the child can process the information at a level that suits them.

Hearing/seeing/reading about things on the news is more objective than having something happen in a book to a character you have made a connection with which can hit on a different level.

KatyI

I think in this day & age it's a good thing to educate about the real world & not try to make out life' s a bed of roses. Let kids realise that life isn't always sweet. You have to remember that some children don't get the family support & intimate detailed chats that you might give your children. The teacher might be the first person who has ever confronted the topic with them. You can't wrap them in cotton wool forever. Some children have to figure things out for themselves, even in this day & age, also sex is far more explicit & on most little boys phones anyway by this age. Don't be fooled....they all know much more than we/you think! It won't be long before they start trying things out in real life soon either, better they know a little about it first...then major accidents are less likely to happen!

Jagraf

We tell children from a very early age, from the time they can run around, not to talk to strangers. Do we avoid answering their questions associated with this until they are old enough to not let it affect their innocent worlds?

We can coat it any way we like, the end product is that our children know there are bad people in this world.

Jagraf

KatyI wrote: »

I think in this day & age it's a good thing to educate about the real world & not try to make out life' s a bed of roses. Let kids realise that life isn't always sweet. You have to remember that some children don't get the family support & intimate detailed chats that you might give your children. The teacher might be the first person who has ever confronted the topic with them. You can't wrap them in cotton wool forever. Some children have to figure things out for themselves, even in this day & age, also sex is far more explicit & on most little boys phones anyway by this age. Don't be fooled....they all know much more than we/you think! It won't be long before they start trying things out in real life soon either, better they know a little about it first...then major accidents are less likely to happen!

I agree with this, many parents may be able to cover all issues at home but some kids don't have that support and are missing out. Life is about the whole education, not just bits of it.

itchyextremist

there's a lot of prudes in here

GlasweJen

I just don't get it, learning that bad things happen won't take innocence away from a child.

As a child Nana had a number written in pen on her arm. When I was about 4 I asked why it didn't wash off and was told a bad man wrote it there forever. Then when I was about 6 we talked about the holocaust at Yom Kippur, I wasn't any less a 6 year old having learned about it.

I shared my room with a big sister so I found out about periods not long after that, and mum left a book about puberty out for me to read when I was 7. Sister filled me in about sex not long after - again I was still a 7 year old.

Learning about "real life" doesn't stop you from being a child. Thankfully I'm white and never experienced racist bullying but the Chinese kid in my class did, does that make him "too street wise", I'd say no.