Too old? Too young? Just right?

I've been involved in an interesting conversation about reluctant readers, started in the comments on Jen Robinson's PBS Parents Post, and continued on her blog. One thing all the commentators seemed to agree on was that kids need to find their own level, read the books that speak to them rather than what seems to be popular. And, of course, I agree.

But. I also think reading above one's level is actually a fine thing--if one is the kind of kid who stretches rather than shrinks when confronted with new things. I was that kind of kid, and I read War and Peace when I was twelve, after seeing the Masterpiece Theatre production. I can't say I understood it, but it gave me great pleasure, nonetheless, to cart it around and do my best.

Now A.O. Scott chimes in with a similar, but perhaps even more revolutionary, suggestion--that you let your kids watch movies "above their level." Again, speaking from personal experience, I'm with him: I know I watched things that I wasn't "ready" for, emotionally or intellectually, but that I nonetheless stretched and grew as a result. Of course this all has to do with knowing your own children--Nick found both Harry Potter and The Princess Bride "too scary" the first time he tried to watch them, so we let him stop and he came to them on his own time. But Mariah started watching PG and PG-13 movies long before she was 13, if we thought they were right for her, and Nick has certainly seen his share as well. Perhaps of R movies, too, though it's hard to remember.

Books don't come with ratings or warning labels (usually), of course, but I think the issue is analogous. Share what you like, know your child, and enjoy.

Important Questions

You can always count on Stanley Fish to ask important questions, and to answer them in a counter-intuitive or even an annoying way. Here he is today:

Do the humanities ennoble? And for that matter, is it the business of the humanities, or of any other area of academic study, to save us?

If you've read any Fish before you won't be terribly surprised by his answer:

The answer in both cases, I think, is no. The premise of secular humanism (or of just old-fashioned humanism) is that the examples of action and thought portrayed in the enduring works of literature, philosophy and history can create in readers the desire to emulate them. Philip Sydney put it as well as anyone ever has when he asks (in “The Defense of Poesy,” 1595), “Who reads Aeneas carrying old Anchises on his back that wishes not it was his fortune to perform such an excellent act?” Thrill to this picture of filial piety in the Aeneid and you will yourself become devoted to your father. Admire the selfless act with which Sidney Carton ends his life in “A Tale of Two Cities” and you will be moved to prefer the happiness of others to your own. Watch with horror what happens to Faust and you will be less likely to sell your soul. Understand Kant’s categorical imperative and you will not impose restrictions on others that you would resist if they were imposed on you.

It’s a pretty idea, but there is no evidence to support it and a lot of evidence against it. If it were true, the most generous, patient, good-hearted and honest people on earth would be the members of literature and philosophy departments, who spend every waking hour with great books and great thoughts, and as someone who’s been there (for 45 years) I can tell you it just isn’t so.

In many ways I think Fish is right--that there is no particular justification for the humanities, and certainly that they do not necessarily ennoble (sad to say). The humanities are, as Fish says, their own justification--and in this day of outcome-based education and anxiety about skills and tests and who knows what, that's bad news for us. And yet I still believe--though I fear it is elitist to say so--that reading and writing and thinking deeply are indeed good in and of themselves; that participating in these practices is both pleasurable and valuable for their own sake.

(I also believe that learning to read critically is still an essential skill, but I'm not going to argue with Fish about it because I take his point, that justifying the humanities from outside the humanities is giving in to an outlook that, in general, I do not share.)

More Cybils finalists

The rest of the Cybils finalists have now been announced:

Young Adult Fiction

Nonfiction Picture Books

Graphic Novels
(as with science fiction/fantasy, this one is two lists, one each for YA and MG)

Nonfiction

You can also listen to a podcast with the nonfiction picture book panelists, and also check out Jen Robinson, Cybils committee member and organizer, over here at the PBS Parents website, talking about children's books.

So much Cybils-related goodness! Enjoy!

One more thing

Apropos of the last post, my column "Sad Stories and why we read them" was highlighted as an editor's favorite over on the latest Literary Mama update. Go and check out all the other great reads you may have missed last year!

what?

I usually like the book news from The Guardian--I like it enough that I added it to my feed reader. But this just seems clueless: Just a few short years ago, while teen sex had long been OK-ed and drug use was creeping in "for authenticity", death was cited as the last taboo. Now, death seems to positively stalk children's books, with characters confronting the grave with sometimes alarming abandon.

I'm not going to argue about whether there's a lot of child/teen death in novels for kids and teens right now--I haven't read enough to know whether it seems excessive. But the notion that it had previously been a taboo just seems bizarre and ahistorical to me. Child death is the central topic of much early literature for and about children, as some of the commenters on the Guardian blog have already noted. And canonical authors for kids and teens in the latter half of the twentieth century--Lois Lowry, Katherine Paterson, John Knowles, to name only three--certainly deal with child death in their works. Where has Julia Eccleshare been?

Cybils in the news

The International Reading Association has the scoop.
I already linked to the Fantasy/Sci Fi short list; here are the rest:

Fiction Picture Books

Middle Grade Novels

Poetry

Kudos to the nominating panels, by the way, who read a long, long list of books and pulled together these short lists during a very busy time of year. My hat reading glasses is are off to them!

My first goal for 2008...

...will be to read the Cybils nominees in fantasy and science fiction. This is my first time as a Cybils judge and I'm pretty excited--and a little anxious. I don't think ten books in just over a month is an issue--but I have another short list to read through as well, for the ChLA book award, and between the two I expect to have a busy reading month.