"Modern children lack ability for Dickens..."

Ficheall · 05-02-2012 06:59PM #1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16896661

Leading Charles Dickens biographer Claire Tomalin has said children are not being taught to read with the attention span necessary to appreciate the novelist's works.
Tomalin said Dickens's depiction of an unequal society was still "amazingly relevant", ahead of nationwide celebrations to mark the 200th anniversary of his birth.
Children were now unable to appreciate this due to "being reared on dreadful television programmes", she said in an interview with the Press Association.
"Children are not being educated to have prolonged attention spans and you have to be prepared to read steadily for a Dickens novel and I think that's a pity."
On Tuesday, events will take place around the UK to celebrate Dickens's bi-centenary.
They include a street party in Portsmouth, Hampshire, where the novelist was born.
There will be a wreath-laying ceremony at his grave in Poets' Corner in Westminster Abbey, London, attended by the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall and celebrities including Ralph Fiennes.
A Global Dickens Read-a-thon will also take place in 24 countries from Albania to Zimbabwe, beginning in Australia with a reading from Dombey and Son.
Tomalin, who will also attend the Westminster Abbey event, said Dickens was "after Shakespeare, the greatest creator of characters in English.
"He has gone on entertaining people since the 1830s and his characters' names are known all over the world.
"And because of the way he wrote, he adapts very well for theatre and even people who do not read him know about him from films, the TV and musicals.
"You only have to look around our society and everything he wrote about in the 1840s is still relevant - the great gulf between the rich and poor, corrupt financiers, corrupt MPs, how the country is run by old Etonians, you name it, he said it."
Tomalin added that the character in modern culture most like one created by Dickens was Basil Fawlty.
"The whole two series of Fawlty Towers stand up, they are so funny and Basil Fawlty, he is a Dickensian monster."
Tomalin's Charles Dickens: A Life has been widely acclaimed by literary critics and was shortlisted for 2011's Costa Book Awards biography prize.
She has also chronicled the lives of Samuel Pepys, Jane Austen and Thomas Hardy.

While I'd probably agree that children nowadays have shorter attention span/less imagination etc - I've always been an avid reader, yet Dickens never did anything for me... and it's certainly not something I'd give a child to read.

goose2005 · 05-02-2012 07:02PM

His depictions of society weren't all that brilliant - Orwell puts it well (very long essay) http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/dickens/english/e_chd

El Siglo · 05-02-2012 07:03PM

Ficheall wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16896661

While I'd probably agree that children nowadays have shorter attention span/less imagination etc - I've always been an avid reader, yet Dickens never did anything for me... and it's certainly not something I'd give a child to read.

"There are books of which the backs and covers are by far the best parts."

BaconZombie · 05-02-2012 07:05PM

OP you need to put a TL;DR on the bottom of that post?

44leto · 05-02-2012 07:07PM

Ficheall wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16896661

While I'd probably agree that children nowadays have shorter attention span/less imagination etc - I've always been an avid reader, yet Dickens never did anything for me... and it's certainly not something I'd give a child to read.

They had the attention span for the Potter novels and read them in their millions.

I to am an avid reader and also Dickens never appealed to me.

djimi · 05-02-2012 07:09PM

Got as far as "being reared on dreadful television programmes" and stopped reading. I hate people who take that attitude; society has moved on, people prefer visual media these days. I love to read and I think its very important for children to read, but to expect a child to sit through the works of Dickens (which I as a 29 year old struggle with) is absurd.

doomed · 05-02-2012 07:11PM

I had no interest in Dickens when I was a kid but I got back into them in recent years and they are much better and wittier than I thought. However a lot of it would go over a child's head.

later12 · 05-02-2012 07:12PM

Personally I really enjoy Dickens. But I can see how children today might have trouble with his language in particular; it is rather archaic by today's standards.

On the other hand, Dickens is a master of punctuation. I'm not a grammar dick, but if you ever want lessons in the effective and precise use of punctuation, just consult a Dickens novel. He makes it an art in itself.

brummytom · 05-02-2012 07:12PM

I don't think it's anything to do with attention span. I've had to read far, far longer books than half of Dickens' just for GCSE English, which wasn't a problem.

Dickens is just dirge.

goose2005 · 05-02-2012 07:13PM

it was the best of times, it was the blurst of times.

44leto · 05-02-2012 07:18PM

djimi wrote: »

Got as far as "being reared on dreadful television programmes" and stopped reading. I hate people who take that attitude; society has moved on, people prefer visual media these days. I love to read and I think its very important for children to read, but to expect a child to sit through the works of Dickens (which I as a 29 year old struggle with) is absurd.

But that is becoming a problem, the internet is changing children's brains. The internet is to easy and fast and it is easily distracting hence the deficits in attention spans.

If you want to learn something it should take effort there really is no substitute for a book and a good teacher.

Stereomaniac · 05-02-2012 07:18PM

I think that's because it has just been lost over time. If you are exposed to something intensively enough, you'll believe in it eventually. Forgive me, I use the wrong words. I mean, I will, and by believe in it, I mean, grasp some level of understanding. Classics are classics.

El Siglo · 05-02-2012 07:18PM

goose2005 wrote: »

it was the best of times, it was the blurst of times.

You stupid monkey!

Suryavarman · 05-02-2012 07:20PM

Such a shame, The Muppet Christmas Carol is a classic.

HavingCrack · 05-02-2012 07:20PM

I enjoyed Great Expectations and A Christmas Carol. I found A Tale of Two Cities to be dire, tried reading it twice and only got about 60 pages in on both occasions. His other books are distinctly average, not really children's books in any case.

kylith · 05-02-2012 07:21PM

I too think the problem is with the subject matter rather than the children. My nieces and nephew are avid readers, and have no problem getting through the Eragon books, which are much larger than any Dickens novel I've seen.

I read voraciously as a child, and often quite old and age-inappropriate books, but I could never stomach Dickens; it just did nothing for me.

later10 wrote: »

On the other hand, Dickens is a master of punctuation. I'm not a grammar dick, but if you ever want lessons in the effective and precise use of punctuation, just consult a Dickens novel. He makes it an art in itself.

I might give it another look, so. I,m always trying; to improve, my punctuation.

Logical Fallacy · 05-02-2012 07:23PM

I have a genuine distrust of biographers tbh.

You have to seriously hero worship someone to want to write a biography of them, so it's largely impossible to operate without bias.

HavingCrack · 05-02-2012 07:24PM

44leto wrote: »

But that is becoming a problem, the internet is changing children's brains. The internet is to easy and fast and it is easily distracting hence the deficits in attention spans.

If you want to learn something it should take effort there really is no substitute for a book and a good teacher.

While I agree with the first part the second is not neccessarily correct. Sometimes the audio visual or audio can be a more effective tool for learning than a book.

Have a look at the television documentary series The World at War is considered by many to be the definitive history of WW2 rather than a book. There are scores of books on WW2 out there (and I've read a lot of them) but none do as good a job as television did to be honest.

44leto · 05-02-2012 07:24PM

HavingCrack wrote: »

I enjoyed Great Expectations and A Christmas Carol. I found A Tale of Two Cities to be dire, tried reading it twice and only got about 60 pages in on both occasions. His other books are distinctly average, not really children's books in any case.

I did enjoy a Christmas Carol when i was a kid but if I just picked it up I wouldn't, its to over exposed.

I read Bram Stokers Dracula last year and I did enjoy that, so some classics will always have merit to spite their exposure.

HavingCrack · 05-02-2012 07:27PM

44leto wrote: »

I read Bram Stokers Dracula last year and I did enjoy that, so some classics will always have merit to spite their exposure.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein would be another

.

44leto · 05-02-2012 07:28PM

HavingCrack wrote: »

While I agree with the first part the second is not neccessarily correct. Sometimes the audio visual or audio can be a more effective tool for learning than a book.

Have a look at the television documentary series The World at War is considered by many to be the definitive history of WW2 rather than a book. There are scores of books on WW2 out there (and I've read a lot of them) but none do as good a job as television did to be honest.

Well you picked an exceptional documentary there, I really couldn't disagree with you there on that particular serious because it is brilliant.

But what I find, documentaries are easilly forgotten with a book and personal instruction you retain and understand the info more, maybe that is just me.

Underdraft · 05-02-2012 07:29PM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I have a genuine distrust of biographers tbh.

You have to seriously hero worship someone to want to write a biography of them, so it's largely impossible to operate without bias.

Or it could just be a job. I'm sure not every biography ever written was done so by a fan of that person.

Logical Fallacy · 05-02-2012 07:30PM

HavingCrack wrote: »

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein would be another .

Indeed. An amazing piece of literature.

losthorizon · 05-02-2012 07:31PM

doomed wrote: »

I had no interest in Dickens when I was a kid but I got back into them in recent years and they are much better and wittier than I thought. However a lot of it would go over a child's head.

That's because children are usually very small in stature.If you put them on a box it might help.

Gurgle · 05-02-2012 07:31PM

I'm rolling with the crowd here: Dickens crap, kids fine.

HavingCrack · 05-02-2012 07:40PM

44leto wrote: »

Well you picked an exceptional documentary there, I really couldn't disagree with you there on that particular serious because it is brilliant.

But what I find, documentaries are easilly forgotten with a book and personal instruction you retain and understand the info more, maybe that is just me.

I suppose whatever works best for you. As you say the World at War is a fantastic series, streets ahead of most documentaries so maybe it's an unfair comparison. I love learning from books myself rather than TV.

I'm not sure is there much research done into which is the most effective method of retaining information. I have a few friends in college who swear by audio for learning. They repeat their notes into a speaker, record them and play it back to them on CD :eek:. I tried it a few times and just couldn't do it. I hate audio books though so I should not have been suprised.

Different strokes I guess.

saa · 05-02-2012 07:51PM

R dey tryn tu saeeiii am stpd? xoxox

GLaDOS · 05-02-2012 07:56PM

I generally find older English difficult to read smoothly, even if I like the book.

Underdraft · 05-02-2012 08:09PM

“What’s to-day!” cried Scrooge, calling downward to a boy in Sunday clothes, who perhaps had loitered in to look about him.
“Eh?” returned the boy, with all his might of wonder.
“What’s to-day, my fine fellow?” said Scrooge.
“To-day!” replied the boy. “Eh.... let me check the calendar app on my iphone”

Extract from Charles Dickens "An Xmas Update, Innit"

44leto · 05-02-2012 08:13PM

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I generally find older English difficult to read smoothly, even if I like the book.

The reason for that was the audience at that time, they hadn't the same exposure to stuff the way a modern audience would. So a writer had to use a lot of descriptions.

For example I could mention New York knowing you would already have an image of that city in your mind, so I wouldn't have to go into a detailed description of that place.

paddyandy · 05-02-2012 08:21PM

Dickens made caricatures of people .Ridicule was his trade .He made Monsters of people in Authority and i'm sure they were there sometimes .

"Modern children lack ability for Dickens..."

Comments