«

[Smiling Spectre]

I would not place Homeless, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Gulliver's Travels, Little Women, Lost World and The Adventures of Oliver Twist in the "before 10" range.

[florianix]

Originally Posted by Smiling Spectre

I would not place Homeless, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Gulliver's Travels, Little Women, Lost World and The Adventures of Oliver Twist in the "before 10" range.

Why not Huckleberry Finn?

I'd also think that Gulliver's Travels are ok, but I can't remember how cruel it is since the last time I read it was just after the banana wars.

Oliver Twist is maybe something where need to be older to really get the topic.

[Smiling Spectre]

Originally Posted by florianix

Why not Huckleberry Finn?

Because it's more "life story" than "adventure". And I don't think that 10th year kid would appreciate it. Not mentioning non-existing reality with nig*s (wow, I didn't know that it obscene lexicon now!), burglars and forced theft. Finn is hobo rogue after all.

I'd also think that Gulliver's Travels are ok, but I can't remember how cruel it is since the last time I read it was just after the banana wars.

Well, it's totally mature story, filled with satire up to the brows, and sometimes with eroticism, philosophy and racism exposition. You can cut out all mature parts, and restrict all travels to lilliputians, but even then it will hardly suit kids. Not in 10, at least.

[florianix]

Originally Posted by Smiling Spectre

Because it's more "life story" than "adventure". And I don't think that 10th year kid would appreciate it. Not mentioning non-existing reality with nig*s (wow, I didn't know that it obscene lexicon now!), burglars and forced theft. Finn is hobo rogue after all.

Well... there are many books that can be read (and liked) on "different levels".
About racism and cruelty within the ones that were written in a different time - most fairytales are also not suitable for children if you want to apply a too restrictive scale.

And looking at what TV programmes they produce for children... I'd say that Huck Finn seems on the harmless side. Not that I like that, but children of that age are nowadays probably exposed to much more inappropriate stuff as we used to be.
At least for me - I'm already 38 ...ahem... let's just say old.

[Smiling Spectre]

Originally Posted by florianix

Well... there are many books that can be read (and liked) on "different levels".
About racism and cruelty within the ones that were written in a different time - most fairytales are also not suitable for children if you want to apply a too restrictive scale.

Well, I was omnivore in this age - but forced one, as there was not much books at all in my town, even counting libraries. And I can compare with current situation, seeing that some books are not very appropriate to kids.

Fairy tales are was quite heavy censored already, I think. I can only remember Hans Christian Andersen that is treated here as children writer... when he is not.

And looking at what TV programmes they produce for children... I'd say that Huck Finn seems on the harmless side. Not that I like that, but children of that age are nowadays probably exposed to much more inappropriate stuff as we used to be.

Well... not here, probably. At least not for "12-" (We have "12+" border, and this is different content

At least for me - I'm already 38 ...ahem... let's just say old.

Hi, brother. 38 here, boy - 11, girls - 7 and 7.

[florianix]

Originally Posted by Smiling Spectre

Hi, brother. 38 here, boy - 11, girls - 7 and 7.

You lucky guy. Congratulations. :-)
( I don't mean the age...)

I'm single, no kids.
Sadly the only things I produced within those 38 years were some parts for some flying things, embedded computers and a electronics company.

So the current standings on the "what a man has to do in life (plant a tree - build a house - have a child) list" are:
children: 0
house: 0.5
tree: minus one

[Smiling Spectre]

Huh. And I thought that it's Russian proverb. %)

And King is Richard Bachman, not Straub.