Reading at any cost?
Yesterday I stumbled across an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal about a trend in publishing to get more boys reading. Check out this excerpt of the article:
Publishers are hawking more gory and gross books to appeal to an elusive market: boys — many of whom would rather go to the dentist than crack open “Little House on the Prairie…”
Scholastic last fall started selling both “Wicked History” and “24/7: Science Behind the Scenes,” a series inspired by the cadaver-heavy hit TV show, “CSI.” One title in the series is “Help! What’s Eating My Flesh: Runaway Staph and Strep Infections!” Readers are treated to color pictures of putrefying limbs and the warning that “sometimes, relatively harmless bacteria can turn into a gruesome killer.” The two series already have more than 300,000 copies in print…
Karen Parker, a seventh-grade science teacher in Montgomery, Ala., plans to use the “24/7″ series in her classes this coming fall after finding it on a recommended list from the National Science Teachers Association. “Half the battle is getting boys to want to read,” she says…
Scholastic and other publishers are heeding the research of such academics as Jeffrey Wilhelm, an education professor at Boise State University. Prof. Wilhelm tracked boys’ reading habits for five years ending in 2005 and found that schools failed to meet their “motivational needs.” Teachers assigned novels about relationships, such as marriage, that appealed to girls but bored boys. His survey of academic research found boys more likely to read nonfiction, especially about sports and other activities they enjoy, as well as funny, edgy fiction…
In battling for those boys, many in the industry consider Scholastic’s “Captain Underpants” series a major victory. First published in 1997, the series, with plenty of toilet humor and pictures, has 37 million copies in print. In 2003, Scholastic followed up with “The Day My Butt Went Psycho,” which the publisher says is “the epic tale of a brave young boy and his crazy runaway butt.” Now a trilogy with the latest installment published two years ago, the “Butt” series has racked up 1.2 million copies.
Kevin Bolger, an elementary-school teacher in Ottawa, offers “Captain Underpants” to his third-grade classes, calling the response “awesome.” “It’s like reading-candy,” Mr. Bolger says.
So, any thoughts? Is any reading — even about runaway butts — better than no reading at all?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Related Posts
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Thank you for your insights! When parents used to ask me at conferences whether or not it was o.k. their son or daughter was reading “candy,” I’ll admit that I would emphasize the fact that the kiddo was reading by choice, and hopefully his or her “taste” would mature eventually.
My parents also read the classics to me and I will be forever grateful — I’m sure they instilled a love for reading by choosing complex, compelling narratives.
Since I do not have kids of my own, I really don’t have experience with the Underpants or Butt series. I certainly am curious now, though!
Um.. I think just reading anything won’t do. At the end of the we need to know WHY we are reading what we read. If what we read does not add value, or give us any form of entertainment then its simply not worth the trouble.
Thanks for the comment, Shamelle! How would you respond to a 2nd grade boy insisting he does get entertainment value out of a book about underpants or butts? 
I’m a second grade teacher and I’m excited when kids read. I have fine literature in my room along with Junie B. Jones. I don’t have Captain Underpants. I’ve not read it nor have any of my kids bought it at the book fair. I read to my kids on a daily basis and I have my personal favorites: Pollyanna, The Secret of NIMH, The Indian in the Cupboard, Alice in Wonderland, The Mouse and the Motorcycle, Charlotte’s Web, Little House on the Prairie, ——- well, I love these stories (and many others) and I share them with my kids. I think that if children are exposed to the best, then they will want to choose these kinds of stories. I look for the classics and the best reads for 2nd-5th grade to make my choices. I do love reading above their reading ability so they can be exposed to the wonderful, living vocabulary. Reading is nectar to bees and my kids are loving it.
I am so glad this post has generated discussion! Thank you… And thank you for sharing your perspective as a 2nd grade teacher, too. It was wonderful to remember so many of my favorite titles (dear little Ralph in his ping pong ball helmet!). Thank you for sharing your perspective, Kathy!
I like Small World’s candy analogy. In fact, our homeschooled kids have taken to identifying various books as candy, popcorn, pizza, steak, etc. depending on whether they are polish-two-off-in-a-day books like the Animorphs or intense Brain-on-Fire reads like C.S. Lewis’ Out of the Silent Planet.
Like Small World, I think it is good that they have learned to do that sort of assessment for themselves. I also think it has made a difference that we as a family have modeled reading serious stuff as an important and enjoyable activity in it’s own right, without the need for “boyish” sensationalism. If we had not done that, I’m not so sure they would enjoy the serious stuff as much as they do.
Oh, and our boys love the “Little House on the Prairie” series. I think they’d call it a good breakfast…
I love how you’ve extended the food metaphor! And how the kids evaluate the books themselves… I know that I need variety in my reading diet 
One of our local theatres in the Twin Cities is performing Little House to rave reviews — I couldn’t even get tickets!
That is a long-standing question in the homeschooling community. There are Charlotte Mason followers who insist that all such books are “twaddle” and that children mustn’t fill their heads with such rubbish; there are others who subscribe to the “let the read it” school of thought. I think what Mr. Bolger says is exactly the thing: Capt. Underpants and his friends are indeed “reading-candy.”
From personal experience, I am torn. My oldest child is a voracious reader and has been since he could first read. I never had to seduce him with reading-candy because he loved the “good stuff.” But he did go through a phase when he picked out a bunch of used Goosebumps book. This was VERY hard for me, but what was really awesome about that experience is that he himself recognized and commented upon the poor quality of the writing in this series (and that was at age 9). He realized that such books were all plot and no craft. Very cool.
But I will say that with my daughter, I ended up going for Junie B. Jones and the Babysitter’s Little Sister, both of which I’m sure are considered candy. At age 10 she is just now interested in reading more solid food like the Little House books.
My third child is just an emerging reader, but I do know that we’ll never allow that big butt book or Capt. Underpants in our house. That is just way too much like Sponge Bob.
I should mention that I’ve always READ classics to all my children aloud on a daily basis. So even the ones that are reading candy to themselves are hearing classic literature regularly.