`Dumbing Down’ Of Children’s Literature Criticized New Version Of `Little Women’ Lightning Rod In Bitter Debate
The letter that author Laurie Lawlor treasures most came from a little girl in St. Louis: “P.S.,” the child wrote, “It’s a shame Beth died.”
It is a shame, generations of girls would agree - sobbing after Beth, the sweet sister, dies in Louisa May Alcott’s “Little Women.”
But this 11-year-old didn’t read the classic 19th-century novel. After first seeing the movie, she read a shorter, modernized and much simplified version of the book, based on the screenplay and written by Lawlor.
It may seem fairly innocent. Certainly, retelling a classic story on a child’s level is nothing new.
But in recent weeks, Lawlor’s book has become a lightning rod in the longstanding and often bitter debate over whether U.S. educational standards are being dumbed-down - lowered so more students will meet them.
“Obviously, if you attract a child back into reading with something like this, then it’s a good thing,” said Christopher Cross, president of the Council for Basic Education in Washington.
“But the worry is that if this is all they’re reading - if you end up substituting a book like this and basically lowering your standards and lowering your expectations - then you’ve got a problem.”
Such worries are especially relevant because American children’s reading habits and ability continue to be dismal, Cross said.
A 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress survey indicated students spend very little time reading, either for pleasure or for schoolwork, but they do pass three or more hours a day watching television.
Lawlor insists her intentions were the best.
The Evanston, Ill., author of 13 children’s historical and modern novels wanted to make the classic accessible to a new generation and pique children’s imaginations to read again.
Youngsters who see the film and then want to read the book often can’t, she contends. Alcott’s 550-page novel - with a complex plot, intricate Victorian writing style and Civil War background - is just too difficult.
Jean Osborn, who helps run a center for reading at the University of Illinois in Champaign, said the real point is to get children to read. “What they read is almost less important, in this argument, than just the fact that they read,” she said.
Classic stories have always been retold in simpler versions for children, agreed John Holdren of the Core Knowledge Foundation in Charlottesville, Va.
But he dislikes Lawlor’s book. He finds particularly disquieting what Lawlor believes she did best - updating the language and mood to make the story more familiar to modern youngsters. He thinks it’s more bland.
“It’s good for children to read about something that happened a long time ago, that they aren’t entirely familiar with,” Holdren insisted. “A little bit of a meaty challenge is a good thing.”
xxxx COMPARISON Louisa May Alcott’s 1869 book is more than 500 pages long. Laurie Lawlor’s 1994 version is 130. Alcott’s book switches back and forth between several story lines, following the four March sisters as they grow up after the Civil War. Lawlor focuses mostly on Jo, the independent sister who wants to write. Alcott’s book is filled with “sermonettes” on God, on duty, on patience, on personal hygiene. Lawlor’s book does not contain those, although it follows Alcott’s general themes of family love, faith and finding oneself. Alcott wrote in the flowery style of the Victorian era. Lawlor kept some of Alcott’s dialogue, but she greatly simplified the vocabulary and sentence structure.