Anything on the list that SHOULDN'T have been included?

Forum1001 Children's Books You Must Read Before You Grow Up

Melde dich bei LibraryThing an, um Nachrichten zu schreiben.

Anything on the list that SHOULDN'T have been included?

Dieses Thema ruht momentan. Die letzte Nachricht liegt mehr als 90 Tage zurück. Du kannst es wieder aufgreifen, indem du eine neue Antwort schreibst.

1BookLizard
Dez. 9, 2009, 10:39am

I haven't come close to reading everything, but why was Troy by Adele Geras included? I can think of quite a few books that are more deserving.

Then there's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn that's listed for ages 8+. 8???? Are you freaking kidding me??? It's a classic that all Americans should read, but in high school, not when they're 8!

2quaintlittlehead
Bearbeitet: Dez. 9, 2009, 12:27pm

I also thought the suggested age range for that book was strange, especially since they listed Heidi as a 12+, when I read that at age 7. I also thought The Scarlet Letter was a bit age-inappropriate for children. The only book I have read that I thought lacked the literary merit to be on the list, though I know it's become perfectly cliché to bash this book, is Twilight.

(edited to add The Scarlet Letter)

3BookLizard
Dez. 9, 2009, 12:32pm

Yeah, the only reason I can see for including it is because it's credited with starting the whole vampire revival. Other books have been just as popular (Gossip Girl), but will become dated pretty quickly. I really think the contributors are biased towards fantasy because it doesn't get as dated as contemporary fiction.

4hdcclassic
Bearbeitet: Dez. 10, 2009, 3:51am

Frankly I expect the possible next edition to drop Twilight, just like this edition didn't include Ergaon which was very much flavor of the month couple of years ago.

Several books I had read felt like they were in the wrong age grouping, more often than not too young (though Heidi as 12+ book...no).

Otherwise no major "this does not deserve to be here" moments, though I wouldn't mind knocking off some of the authors with multiple books to make room for books sadly ignored. And some "either this or that book, but including both is not really necessary" picks.

5morninggray
Dez. 28, 2009, 1:27pm

Lots of age-errors, I think. For example "The Boy in the Striped Pyjama's" by John Boyne. I know it's being marketed as a childrens book, but I think it shouldn't be read by anyone below the age of 14.

I'm guessing Twilight will be dropped in the next edition. I actually really enjoyed reading the book, but including it might be based on the current hype. Usually the 1001 lists change around a lot concerning the more recent books.

6Nickelini
Aug. 7, 2010, 6:55pm

I noticed lots of age errors too--many in the 12+ group were books I read a few years earlier in school, and there were a few books in the 8+ group that shouldn't have been there. A lot of those were classics that I think have not stood the test of time (eg: Waterbabies--urgh). Some of the classics are still great, but sometimes the language is a real barrier. I was just reading about a mom who could not get her kids to take her beloved Swallows and Amazons seriously because one of the children is named 'Titty.'

Also, Fungus the Bogeyman in the 5+ age? I remember reading that about 25 yrs ago when I was graduating high school and thinking it wasn't very child appropriate (I may change my mind now if I saw the book again). And I agree about the Boy in the Striped Pyjamas--book sellers have had a hard time figuring out where it belonged, but I think it's settling into YA now.

There were certainly a few of dubious quality--Berenstain Bears, for example. And the Runaway Bunny, Love You Forever, Can't You Sleep Little Bear? and Guess How Much I Love You all did an excellent job of activating my gag reflex. And Sarah, Plain and Tall was great for curing insomnia in both me and my children.

7annamorphic
Aug. 8, 2010, 9:42am

Autumn Term by Antonia Forest was included in the 8+ section which is ludicrous. I just finished reading aloud another book in the series to my children, ages 11, 13 and 14, and I still had to explain a lot of the emotional and social subtleties to them. I read it when I was 12, but I was an extremely advanced reader. Forest is definitely a (brilliant) 12+ author; more of her books should have been included.

I agree that Twilight was included as a literary phenomenon, but I don't think it will survive because it merely instituted a revival and didn't really do anything marvelously new.

8azharkhanashfar
Sept. 6, 2010, 11:57pm

The scarlet Letter? Seriously? I think it is too heavy, since i study the book in my College for literature...

Yeap.. Twilight is too cliche

9Tess_W
Mai 17, 2014, 11:15am

The Scarlett Letter and Fahrenheit 451 certainly are not children's books. I think they could read all the words, but the comprehension of the underlying themes, there would be none, for most. We teach both of those books in 10th grade at my school.

10Tess_W
Mai 17, 2014, 11:17am

#6--I think the Berenstein Bears and Sarah Plain and Tall are great classic inclusions!