I’ll weigh in on the ‘okay with it’ side too. I read a lot in elementary school - everything from Piers Anthony to - well, okay, a lot of Piers Anthony. Shut up, I was ten. I actually kind of miss being able to enjoy really poorly-written books, and it clearly didn’t stop me from developing overpowering editorial impulses. If anything, I think it helped me be able to recognize poor writing. After you go through six or seven Redwall books, you can pick out the Designated Hero in a snap.
You forgot werewolves. If there’s two things the hilarious Blogger Beware has taught me, it’s that most Goosebumps protagonists have scientists for parents, and more often than not the twist is “werewolves.”
Let them read! Hell, I still read fluff books along with Shakespeare and Twain.
Reading fluff is good-
- It’s fun and reading should be fun.
- It reinforces reading skills for developing readers (not all reading needs to be at or above grade level)
- It teaches kids the difference between fluff and literature as they get older, developing analysis skills they use in HS and college
- It can be an entry level “drug” for reluctant readers
- Again, it’s fun! Reading should be fun and that in and of itself has value.
I wouldn’t stop my child reading fluff - Babysitter’s Club, Sweet Valley High - however I would have a problem with the book mentioned in the other thread. Anything that legitimizes IM speak as an acceptable form of communication is a no-go with me. I worry about my daughter growing up in a world where written English will be a second language among ppl hoo tink tis ok 2 rite lik this. u can unnerstand wat I meen so y does it mater, rite? i snear @ ur antaqwated noshuns of speeling punctoayshun n gramma.
Ban the book, burn the book and shoot the author*. It’s the only way to be sure.
Note To The Humor Impaired: Said in jest. Mostly.
Yes. Only it was a 2yo and the book was Hand, Hand, Finger, Thumb. One thumb, one thumb drumming on a drum. One thumb, two thumbs drumming on a drum. Dum-diddy-dum-diddy-dum-dum-dum.
Oh god…make it stop…
I have a deal with the Kiddo (10 yo, reading at grade level). For every couple of “fun fiction” books he chooses to read, I get to pick the next book.
I usually pick non-fiction like biographies of people I know he’s interested in. The Childhood of Famous Americans series is really good. Also, I pick classic childrens’ fiction. This last time, I had him read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and his next several choices of his own have been the rest of the series.
Dad bought me all kids/teens/young adult novels I wanted (fluff and Newberry medals), and even he has a couple of more adult series he likes (Brother Cadfael and the PD James detective novels, Capitán Alatriste, etc.). He also read to me at night when I was a kid (up to when I was 8 or so… and I was a good reader by then)… It was a bonding with daughter thing. sniff
My parents also have a well stocked library with all of the Latin American classic books, and they let me take whatever I want and read it. They’ve done that since I was… 10? 12? Obviously some of that stuff I couldn’t grasp well, and in many cases I’ve reread them some years later to “get it”.
They’ve also supported some of my comic and magazine habits when I was a kid. Basically, anything that will get me to read, learn vocabulary, and be proficient in the language (English or Spanish) was good by them.
When I was young, I read Tom Corbett Space Cadet, and the Nancy Drew Mysteries, and Tom Swift, etc. Also every comic book I could get my hands on (I had a Spider Man #1 that I read until it fell apart–wish I had that puppy now :)). Then I graduated to Doc Savage.
Now I read everything, have a happy–15 years and no end in sight–marriage, make a good living and have 8 kids. So my life turned out OK. The older kids mostly read, and the little ones read Goosebumps, the “Fairies” (Gem Fairy, Weather Fairy, Blah Fairy, etc.), and whatever.
Just Some Guy has brilliantly illustrated that one can start out reading junk, uh, less-than-brilliant-literature, and end up with literary skills.
dangermom has clearly stated the “fluff proposition”: “This is just a step up from that; repetitive pattern with variation.”
So I say: Your kids are reading, and that’s good. Be sure they get “quality” stuff along with the rest and don’t sweat it.
Have you read my posts? Those early books clearly did *some *brain damage. 
I found your post (#3 in this thread) to be clearly written and mildly amusing. That puts you, IMHO, in the top 5% of all people writing in the English language today. Well above many who write for a living, such as those who write for newspapers and TV news :(. Not bad for Just Some Guy with dain brammage.
Chiming in to agree with the dopers who’ve posted here. From my perspective working in a high school library, I’d rather see kids reading “fluff” than not reading. I don’t worry about the teenagers reading “Twilight” or V.C. Andrews, or R.L. Stine. It’s the ones who come in and proudly say they haven’t read a book since elementary school that I worry about.
I guess I’m the only one here who does not see how reading fluff is better than not reading books at all.
I don’t follow the “anything that gets kids reading” argument because I don’t see reading as inherently good in and of itself. It depends on what you’re reading, why, what you’re attitude is toward the work and toward your reading, and so on.
I might buy the argument if I were convinced that people who continue to read fluff are more likely eventually to read good stuff, but I’m not convinced of that.
-FrL-
There is no guarantee that people who read fluff will move on to much more serious stuff. We are talking general trends. I can’t imagine that someone who doesn’t find joy in reading - be it fluff or not - will become a life-long reader.
Especially for kids, I think it falls under the “practice” theory. Reading is a skill, and like all skills becomes easier with practice. The more one reads, the better one’s reading comprehension is likely to get. Even “fluff” books can introduce new words to a kid’s vocabulary. Fluff books can show a child who is disinterested in reading for pleasure that a good book, fluffy or not, can be as good as or better than watching a movie. Better reading skills aquired by practice make reading quality literature easier.
It doesn’t prove that the kid *will *read “better” books, but it removes a barrier.
I had a friend in high school with dyslexia. She was not a reader when we met. Since we were neanderthal pre-texting students, we’d pass notes. Long, gossipy teenaged girl notes. Hers were hard to parse.
She developed a voracious appetite for trashy romance novels. Okay, we both did. But I was a bookworm to start with. Over a year or two, her notes became easier to read. Her spelling improved. Her written vocabulary increased. I’m not suggesting reading bodice rippers cured her dyslexia, but it gave her valuable practice with written language. The fact that we also learned florid euphemisms for reproductive organs didn’t negate that value. Who cares if she never moved past Julie Garwood onto Milton?
Practice in reading, learning vocabulary, grammar, sentence structure, etc. Reading (fluff and not fluff) was what increased my vocabulary in both English and Spanish. In the case of English, my parents don’t have as big non-fluff collection as in Spanish, so I read young adult series because that is all I had and knew. Don’t know a word, cannot get it in context? Go to the dictionary. 
I read non-fluff books early. Many of them, like I said, I didn’t “get”… mostly because my reading comprehension skills were lacking or they were way over my head in terms of themes. Reading “fluff” helped me, as it gave me some leisure, something to do, some practice… that I eventually applied to the other books.
Reading fluff is fine. I’ve always read a variety of things, from fluff to stuff above my grade level. I still will occasionally go and reread some book from my childhood or even a new book for young adults. And really, who is to say what is fluff? I don’t buy the trope that popular equals inferior. So yeah of course your kids are more likely to move on to ‘heavier’ stuff if they learn to love to read by starting with fluffier stuff. And even if they don’t, at least they are reading. And it’s not like if you had banned the fluff that they would have been more likely to read Shakespeare.
I’ve read the book in question, and it’s not as you’re speculating. There are acronyms, obviously, and little to no capitalization, but there are no egregious misspellings or grammatical errors. The IM device seems to have been used because IM convos are how the characters let their guard down, not because the author is in love with leet-speak. Teenagers – heck, people in general – do communicate online, so what’s the harm in showing that.
I’ve been working on college student papers a bit more carefully than usual lately (marking them, suggesting draft changes, etc (I’m not an English prof so generally it’s not my turf), and I’m a little amazed at the range of ability. All white middle class upper division kids, and many of them still have problems with sentences and phrasing-- as if written English is definitely not their friend. And I can’t figure out what the difference between them and their naturally-writing peers is, except that perhaps they never read a lot so they simply don’t have the instant sense of what written English “sounds” like. I’m starting to think of it as the “he must of” problem.
Anyway, IMO ANY reading will help writing. The more the better-- even crap published fiction tends to have more or less correct grammar.
It also reinforces to kids that reading is fun. Sure, we all know that there is more fun to be had than reading the Babysitters’ Club, but nagging at kids to read books that are constantly increasing in difficulty, always dealing with “worthy” themes, is not likely to teach them that reading is a really fun pastime. I always thought that reading was more fun than watching TV or movies - not more intellectually stimulating, just plain more fun - and I hope to bring my kids up to feel the same.
The comparison between rereading picture books and reading series was also really eye-opening to me. I’ve wondered why, when I used to love those books, I haven’t chosen to read a series in years now. I guess I just no longer need the reassurance of reappearing characters.
Oh, and at a recent party with fellow history graduate students, talk came round to the Babysitters’ Club. Not only had we all read them, and the Sweet Valley Twins, but we all remembered the characters and plots in detail. Needless to say, we all do more serious reading most of the time now.
YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES
(I did teach college composition for a year. The grammar…the horror…)