How to read vintage books by understanding time and place

Hello my friends of the Omschool, teacher Omi (grama) here with some thoughts on reading vintage children's literature. There are certain mindsets one must have and preconceived notions to do away with when reading books not set in a familiar time or place. Or books about unfamiliar subject matter, especially different cultures, traditions and peoples. 

I have an advantage here because I am vintage and much of what I have read, even as a child, far predates me, timewise and in content. I was born in 1964 and learned to read about 4. I got left alone to read what I wanted. So I often ended up reading books that were too mature for me. I have also read books that take place within different cultural milieu. Scholastic Books was very good at presenting different times and cultures sensitively and accurately. And I was a diehard Scholastic fangirl. 

All this was so good for me because it broadened my mind, deepened my empathy and and prevented me from developing a lot of ethno-centric stereotypes and prejudices. I've always had intense respect and appreciation for people's differing ways of doing things. If anything, I wanted to leave the US and move to those places I read about. 

But back to topic, mindsets we need for reading vintage literature. Maybe mindset is the wrong word because it implies inflexibility and we need flexibility and tolerance to understand things outside our ken. It's crucial to accept that not everyone does things or understands things as I do. My culture, upbringing, background, society and age play a huge role. 

I got to thinking about this reading a blog post about a book called "Dinky Hocker Shoots Smack" (M.E. Kerr). I'm not sure the blogger's age but guessing they weren't reading this book when it was written in 1972 (set in 71). There are many criticisms about its many "wacky" references. 

However the wacky references, such as the cat's name being Ralph Nader, wasn't wacky at all in 1971. Ralph Nader was a household name. It would be like naming a cat Steve Jobs now. It was also deemed strange that main character Tucker's mom wrote for a true confessions magazine. In 1971, the grocery store aisle was papered in such magazines, the National Enquirer being the best known. 

Then there's discussion on quirky ways parents behaved which, though it might sound made-up was actually pretty normal, especially in larger cities like L.A. People did go to shrinks and join trendy and fad religious groups. Many of the biggest named diets like South Beach and Scarsdale came out at that time. Moms did do charity work and called it that. The word Ghetto was in common parlance. 

There's also commentary on odd things different characters say which to someone living in those times sounds completely normal. Not acceptable but certainly common. Racism, misogyny, religious and lifestyle bigotry was on prime-time with Archie Bunker. He openly attacked liberals, Jews and "pinkos" and was applauded for it. Kids got used to hearing their parents say things and use terms that make us cringe today. It made some of us cringe then too.  

And then there is the mention of Dinky Hocker's BMI, 5'4" 165#,  which makes the author very uncomfortable. But this BMI WAS considered very overweight back then. I was put on a 1,000 calorie a day diet at age 8 because I weighed 100 pounds. I never gained more than 25 pounds or so and just hit max weight more quickly. Then when I gained weight in high school, I was called fat at 138 pounds. It may not be right but it is how it was.  People were smaller back then, it's just a fact. 

Why do I bring these points up? Because they highlight how important it is, when reading books in different time periods, to understand that what we do and think now isn't always how it's been. And that authors are writing in the time they live to audiences of the time. Agatha Christie used the N-word in a play because it was acceptable then. 

Even beloved Nancy Drew was a condescending racist bigot with a bad case of white savior complex, in her earlier incarnations. But she was reflecting the time and place she lived in. So to understand a novel, we have to understand what the time was like, as odd as it may seem. We don't have to like or agree. But we have to understand. 

We can note what's wrong but we also have to be careful not to be too judgmental of authors reflecting their own time and experience. Some of them were breaking ground just by mentioning these things. And future generations will look back on us and have a lot to find fault with too (current Trump regime springs to mind). Not all change is progress. Nor was the past a unilaterally better time and place. Some things are better, some worse, some just different. 

A case for censorship: Why kids should read age-appropriate books

Hi friends of the Omschool. Today's topic is loaded and controversial. I'm talking about censorship and why there are reasons for it. Now, if you know me, you know that last thing I am is a book burner. Banning books accomplishes about as much locking up alcohol. It just makes it that much more tempting. I'm not talking about entirely forbidding certain books. I'm saying keep kids from reading books that aren't age-appropriate until they are old enough to understand them. And my reason for saying this is anecdotal. 

I started reading about 3 or 4  was reading chapter books by seven and adult literature by about 9. My parents were very involved in their own lives and didn't take any interest in what I read. So I read books that were waaayy to mature for me. I ended up learning about things I was far too young to understand and only ended up feeling icky and confused. 

For example, books on intimacy. I read and loved "Are you there God, it's me Margaret" because it actually talked about things like getting your period. So I moved on, at age 9-ish, to "Then Again Maybe I Won't" which talked about a boy's version of puberty. And was totally embarrassed. I totally missed the really good parts of the book because I was stuck on the what seemed to me, gross parts. 

Was it wrong for a book geared for 10-14 y/os to talk about male genitalia, wet dreams and self-stimulation? Well, I rest my case for age-appropriate: 13 or 14 maybe, 10, no. My husband said he never read it but would have been horrified even at age 13 or 14. I won't be buying it for my grandsons, either. I'm not a prude but just because I was so off-put reading it too young. Which is sad because the book is a very good read. Maybe it was just the time we lived in, maybe not. 

Anyway, then, I bought "Forever" also Judy Blume at 11 and was NOT ready for that AT ALL. It was clearly YA, written about a 17 y/o and was full on teen sex. It made me sick but also luridly fascinated. The problem is not whether teens should read it but that tweens certainly should not.  It sent me down the Harlequin romance rabbit hole and by 13, I was reading semi-porn grocery store novels with my stepmom. I still recall how uncomfortable they  made me, but hey, when an adult lets you, why not? 

Well, why not is because it imprints indelible images on your young mind that leave you feeling dirty and ashamed. But no one tells you this and you don't dare to tell anyone for fear of being told you're disgusting. And if you have been molested, it just makes things worse. You believe it's your fault for reading such things in the first place. 

So I don't believe that kids books should sanitize or condescend, there are better times for children, teens and YA to be introduced to various topics. It wasn't just books on sex that were too mature for me. I read the "The Pigman" (Paul Zindel) around 10. I liked it but was also disturbed by it. Same with "Dinky Hocker Shoots Smack." They were good but I just wasn't ready for them.  There's arguably no age to read "Helter Skelter" certainly not 13.  

Even books like "Freaky Friday" with which there was nothing "iffy" about and which I absolutely adored posed problems when read too young. I missed a lot, it being stream of consciousness writing. And then there were books like "Harriet the Spy" which I read at a younger age but still in range. I missed a lot in that because the setting was unfamiliar. Also, these elementary age kids were featured doing things that were more suited to middle school. 

And don't get me started on all the YA psych books I consumed like candy at around 12.  "Lisa Bright and Dark" (John Neufield) and "I Never Promised You a Rose Garden" (Joanne Greenberg) gave me a way too young look into mental hospitals, shrinks, manic-depressive disorder, anorexia, depression, schizophrenia, teen suicide, substance abuse, domestic violence, teen pregnancy, homosexuality, and other terrifying but fascinating issues. 

Then there were the "teen journal" books I became obsessed with at about 13, such as "Go Ask Alice" "Jay's Journal" and "Annie's Baby." They too dealt with fascinating but frightening things, including Satanism and occult. I just learned, looking them up, that it was all a big con and author Beatrice Sparks was a fake. I really believed she was a psychiatrist and that these were real stories from kids' journals. I majored in psychology because of books like these and even recommended them in past articles. There was a lot of money to be made on teen suffering back then. 

In closing, I don't say that these issues should be hushed up. I wish there had been more books on things I was dealing with, like parentification and enmeshment. But then, I probably wouldn't have made the connection anyway because literature was an escape for me. I just urge parents to know what your child is reading and be prepared to walk with them through it. 

Our son wanted to take on Stephen King at around 12. I was reluctant but didn't want to make it forbidden fruit. So I powered through a few with him (and found I'm still to young for some of this content!) And we talked about it. And he regrets reading some of it. But maybe that's what maturing is all about, making choices as best you can and living with the consequences of those choices. 

Thanks--mar