Probably a bit foolish, but. . .

ddgryphon · Aug 15, 2006

In terms of non-fiction books, I'm pretty sure the vitrolic political books do the best. I have a number of ideas centered around how society is being changed by science (quick example: children today have trouble accepting "classic" films and books becuase life is so incredibly different today and things move much more quickly -- so a book less than 50 years old is almost as ancient today as a 200 year old book was 50 years ago).

It is also observational rather than authoratative -- though I can back up my assertions with statistics and interviews.

The foolish part, is there perhaps a market for this or is it just geeky musings? Where would one seek to print such observations and analysis?

Thank you.

BrianTubbs · Aug 15, 2006

Have you tried articles?

I can't give any authoritative advice on writing books, because I have yet to do that myself. But I have written several articles - and gotten them published. I can see some potential article ideas in what you're talking about. Maybe you should try some along the lines of...

"Top Ten Classic Movies Everyone Should See"
"Top Ten Classic Books Every American Should Read"
"Timeless Treasures from Yesteryear"

Stuff like that.

If you have an interest in getting the younger audiences to connect with the past, you could try some of the Parenting or Home School magazines.

Just a thought.

Tricksie-ish · Aug 15, 2006

I also believe you can somehow tie this into education. Perhaps the book comes from the experience of exposing students to some of the things that you have mentioned. I know one thing for sure, parents seem to be all over anything that involves their kids getting ahead in the world. They would support an initiative like this

I read something recently about how many colleges, including Harvard, are encouraging all of their students to take a "gap year" between senior year of high school and freshman year of college, to be of service, get real, unwind, etc. The philosophy behind it is very similar to yours.

Mayor of Moronia · Aug 15, 2006

And some artifacts remain timeless because they speak to every age.

Ghost RYter · Aug 15, 2006

I would suggest reading Catcher in the Rye ..... Things are still the same , just portraid diffrently and with more honesty.... (married couples in movies and TV couldnt sleep in the same bed / a toilet wasnt shown until brady bunch)
Dosent mean thats the way it really was .
I do agree that science has changed our lives but not our humanity ....YET

ddgryphon · Aug 15, 2006

I understand what you're saying the basic people haven't changed, however, the science has changed how we live. Catcher in the Rye is a great book, but think about today's society, children tethered by Cell phones, internet cafe's, e-mail -- how easy would it be for Holden to disappear today and have the experience he did? How many children can read that story without asking, why didn't he have a cell phone -- wasn't his picture on a milk carton, etc. etc. the pace and accessability of things are quite different today and the kids know it.

Penguin Queen · Aug 15, 2006

Lots of poeple disappear though without a trace - hence the milk carton pics etc.
It's surprisingly easy to update old stories by throwing in a bit of new technology.
re. Catcher in the Rye -- He could have thrown the mobile (cell phone) away. He could have given it to someone, thus covering his tracks. etc.
@ddgryphon -- I'm not sure actually that your central premise holds (although of course thats no reason not to write about it :tongue

) -- Harry Potter inhabits a recognisably modern world, but there is not a single computer nor mobile phone in any of the books, and they sell like the proverbial hot cakes.

ddgryphon · Aug 17, 2006

My central premise isn't that you can't write books that appeal to kids because of technology. My premise is children find it difficult to relate to books written in the 19th and early 20th century because society is fundamentally a different place to live (people aren't terribly different, but society is). Not only has the mechanization of everything changed our routines and rhythms, but how we behave as a society has changed. Trust me in that Holden's rebellion is pretty sad by today's standards and not the least bit capable of impacting readers today as when it was written.
Harry Potter is a poor comparison, because it is a fantasy world with no pre-existing expectations and virtually no resemblance to the world we know today. (in fact it is very much a product of the 50's)
In a "Realish" setting, it becomes very difficult to relate to characters that far outside their realm of understanding. Try teaching "Roughing It" or "To Kill a Mockingbird" to kids today. They don't understand what those people are doing. How they are playing, what they are talking about. It is a cultural divide and it is only growing wider.

Sorry, didn't mean to rant -- I need to get some food.

Mayor of Moronia · Aug 17, 2006

ddgryphon

I disagree. I believe many of the better childrens books from the 19th and 20th Centuries appeal to kids today. Many of them remain in print. What has changed is parents. The parents are uncomfortable with the values advocated in the old books. Children are boiling cauldrons of political incorrectness.

Jamesaritchie · Aug 17, 2006

ddgryphon said:
My central premise isn't that you can't write books that appeal to kids because of technology. My premise is children find it difficult to relate to books written in the 19th and early 20th century because society is fundamentally a different place to live (people aren't terribly different, but society is). Not only has the mechanization of everything changed our routines and rhythms, but how we behave as a society has changed. Trust me in that Holden's rebellion is pretty sad by today's standards and not the least bit capable of impacting readers today as when it was written.
Harry Potter is a poor comparison, because it is a fantasy world with no pre-existing expectations and virtually no resemblance to the world we know today. (in fact it is very much a product of the 50's)
In a "Realish" setting, it becomes very difficult to relate to characters that far outside their realm of understanding. Try teaching "Roughing It" or "To Kill a Mockingbird" to kids today. They don't understand what those people are doing. How they are playing, what they are talking about. It is a cultural divide and it is only growing wider.

Sorry, didn't mean to rant -- I need to get some food.

I think you have a good idea, but it will have to be authoritative, and in all honesty, none of the youth reading stas I've seen bear out what you say at all.

Joanna_S · Aug 18, 2006

Why is a child with a cell phone so different and unable to relate to the past, as a child with a television was in the 60's? Just because technology marched on didn't mean no one could relate to the past. I remember reading Gone With the Wind and being enthralled, despite the fact that I was not actually alive during the civil war (and was a northerner, to boot). Heck, Clan of the Cave Bear was a best seller and it was about Cro-magnons and Neanderthals. It isn't history that is incomprehensible. It isn't technology that befuddles young minds. It's a willingness to read that may leave some kids out and that's been going on for a very long time. There are always readers and non-readers. My family was full of readers, but my ex hated reading. My nieces and nephews are always buried in a book and they're children of technology.

I think you need to hone your premise. Basing a book on a presumption without hard, cold facts will torpedo your idea much faster than a lack of credentials.

-- Joanna

ddgryphon · Aug 18, 2006

I'm interested in any statistics or information anyone can point me to, as this is simply observational (and I've done a good deal of observing) in schools, churches, malls, and parks. Kids expectation and maturation levels are different --substantially so--than they were 40 to 50 years ago. What's more their societal interaction is fundamentally different as well.

This is currently your observation vs. my observation, and this discussion has pointed out the need for backing statistics as opposed to anecdotal observation.

Again, if anyone here can point me to numbers that disprove my observations I'm interested. I know numbers for children's earlier maturation process exist, and it is an inherent part of what makes them different -- and thereby affects their perception of earlier kids behavior being wrong or "too young" for their behavior (rhythms and societal interaction).

I won't continue just to volly this back and forth -- it was an honest question and I will happily defend my position. However, I'm not interested in taking up bandwidth here for it. This is probably more suited for "Take it outside the board" and will require citing studies and statistics to support it.

I can simply, at this stage, agree to disagree based on my personal experience and my being naerly 50 years old and having worked with these changes in children and their perception over the course of my life.

If someone really wants to have a full scale disagreement over my obeservations, this isn't the place to do it.

My apologies, I agree, facts are truly needed for this. This discussion has proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt. My family is full of readers too. We are an exception to what I have found to be more common among people. Reading requires imagination and that is being weeded out of our experience from the earliest ages. What imagination we are marketing is self-contained and locked into franchised story worlds. Again, my observation, not provable fact and I will agree to disagree until I have more time to more thoroughly research it.

Thank you all for your answers and help in this forum. I appreciate what each of you has brought into this discussion.

K1P1 · Aug 20, 2006

Sorry I came in late to this. I'd be interested in the details if you're able to collect any statistics on this. While they might show a correlation, I suspect it would be extremely difficult to use them to prove a causal relationship.

What I see is that kids who read a lot have no trouble reading non-contemporary literature. And kids who are read to frequently at an early age are the ones who like to read. Kids whose parents like to read are read to a lot and like to read themselves. This is a really broad generalization and there are lots of individual exceptions, of course.

What seems to be happening is a general decrease in reading because other forms of entertainment are more predominant-movies, TV, internet, gaming, sports, after school classes. Kids today are so busy with all the activities and "enrichment" opportunities, they simply don't have time to read. And people who don't read don't develop their vocabulary or the ability to understand complex sentences easily, so they don't enjoy older books because the find them too challenging.

The corollary, which I see all the time, is that kids who are well-read don't like the current literature intended for them. The find it trivial, condescending and poorly written.

Oh - and you might take a look at E.D. Hirsch's works - "Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know," and many others. Just do a search for him at Amazon. His take on it is that because kids are no longer exposed to the basic canon of literature, including nursery rhymes, folk tales and fairy tails, myths and legends, and classic literature, we no longer have a shared cultural experience. My take on it is that if you don't have the background details, you never get the allusions in the books you're reading.

Just my 2 cents.

Lauri B · Aug 21, 2006

ddgryphon said:
In terms of non-fiction books, I'm pretty sure the vitrolic political books do the best. I have a number of ideas centered around how society is being changed by science (quick example: children today have trouble accepting "classic" films and books becuase life is so incredibly different today and things move much more quickly -- so a book less than 50 years old is almost as ancient today as a 200 year old book was 50 years ago).

I have also come to the discussion late, but neither your first nor your second assertion is accurate, based on long-term sales trends and statistics.

ddgryphon · Aug 21, 2006

Nomad said:
I have also come to the discussion late, but neither your first nor your second assertion is accurate, based on long-term sales trends and statistics.

That's interesting since the Vitrolic political books seem to be perpetually in the top ten, and I watch kids squirm through expositional elements of older movies because they are so used to being dropped into the middle of everything and having it explained on the run through the action as opposed to the old fashioned structure I learned in the 70's (exposition, reversal, climax, falling action). Plus, as noted by kip1, if you don't know the mythology/folk tales/classic allusions, you don't understand the implications of what you're reading.

I'm interested in the sales trends and statistics you mentioned. Where can I get them?

Lauri B · Aug 24, 2006

Sales figures over time are often published in Publishers Weekly, and if you subscribe to Nielsen's Bookscan, you can track them a variety of ways, including by week, year, and lifetime.

Probably a bit foolish, but. . .

ddgryphon

King of Sloth Town

BrianTubbs

Tricksie-ish

Mayor of Moronia

Ghost RYter

ddgryphon

King of Sloth Town

Penguin Queen

Break the rules.

ddgryphon

King of Sloth Town

Mayor of Moronia

Jamesaritchie

Joanna_S

ddgryphon

King of Sloth Town

K1P1

Procrastination is its own reward

Lauri B

I Heart Mac

ddgryphon

King of Sloth Town

Lauri B

I Heart Mac