Goosebumps, Trash Books, Have Them, or Throw Them Out?

Originally posted on Sun, 26 Feb 1995 by Wendy E. Betts

I was intrigued by the comments from the mother whose daughter loves these (sorry, don't remember the name.) It strikes me that these books have become part of a social mechanism that I remember happening only with television or movies when I was an adolescent. *Everyone* saw certain things and if you didn't, you just couldn't participate in the culture.

As a child who spent most of her life reading, I found it very difficult to partipate. There were certainly no *books* that everyone was reading. Perhaps there is a positive aspect to books being part of this social construct. There are some worthier titles that seem to be caught up in the same phenomenon - Janis Schachter, head of children's services here, told me that _The Shadow Club_ was very popular. Not the *best* book in the world, but it certainly has more meat on its bones than the "goosebumps" books do, while maintaining the subversive thrill that was mentioned. Indeed, I can think of really good books that are filled with subversive thrills: _The Moon in the Cloud_ springs immediately to mind, as I just reviewed it.

The difficulty of course is getting these books out surreptitiously, because the whole *point* is that they find these books from each other and it would utterly ruin it to have them recommended. Hey, there's a thought, let's start *pushing* the "goosebumps" books and see how fast they run! ;-)

Of course one of the downsides of this as a social phenomenon is that some children will read the books even though they don't like them at all. But hey, it was the same with movies and t.v....everyone has to learn to stand up for their own tastes at some point.

Originally Posted on Wed, 1 Mar, 1995 by Linda Mandlebaum

As a person who works with future teachers of students with disabilities, I encourage them to use whatever works with reluctant readers--even if it happens to be book series like Goosebumps or Baby Sitters Club. After last summer's discussion of the Goosebump books, I bought a few of them to see for myself what they were like and actually (heaven forbid) enjoyed reading them. I certainly would encourage my students to lead their own students to other reading materials, but to get a little life into students who have had a steady diet of basals, worksheets, flashcards, and/or books that do not interest them or are too difficult for them, the current popular series is a great place to start.

I agree it is interesting that students will read books they don't like, but then teachers have been forcing kids to read things they didn't like for years. Now peer pressure is doing the same thing.

Originally posted on Wed, 1 Mar 1995 by John Dale Fisher

Bravo! Finally, there's someone who speaks out to endorse buying books for an audience to enjoy reading instead of for an audience that's supposed to enjoy reading them. By all means, it's hard enough to get kids nowadays to unplug their Nintendos and MTV--find them something exciting on paper! It's crazy to believe that YA's have to like classics--the first one I read was *The Adventures of Tom Sawyer* in my 7th or 8th grade, and it was for pleasure--but when it's forced-fed as an assignment, they resent classics and most assigned schoolwork because teachers remove the joy of the printed word and story for story's sake.

By all means, librarians, buy all the "trash" that's out there. (One of these days, I may be the author of some of that "trash" you buy!) Let the kids think on their own without a gun or gradebook to their heads, and let them evaluate the worth of a book when it's important to them.

By the way, might we start a booklist of "politically correct" reading? Since *The Indian in the Cupboard* is off that list--as would be *Tom Sawyer*--may I stoke some embers with *The Cay*?

Originally posted on Thu, 2 Mar 1995 by Edward Sullivan

John Dale Fisher applauds the buying of Goosebumps Books and encourages other librarians to buy all the "trash" that is out there. I have to say I am somewhat dismayed by the seemingly predominant attitudes among librarians that we should give the public whatever they want. If that is true, I guess all the shelves in the children's room should be filled with nothing but R.L. Stine, Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Sweet Valley High, Babysitters Club, Walt Disney Picture Books, and so on (ad nauseum). With funds for collection development already severly limited, should librarians spend scarce resources on such stuff? This "trash" can be bought at any chain book store or supermarket, in many cases. Must the library provide access to this "trash" as well? I know the argument will come that there are patrons who will not have the luxury to buy these books, but I would say that these are the books that children will get their hands on one way or another, with or without the help of the library. There have to be some standards. A library obviously cannot select everything and please everyone. The question is should a library settle for a standard of trash, quality, or some (happy?) medium in between.

Originally posted on Thu, 2 Mar 1995 by Wendy E. Betts

On Mar 2, 8:59am, Edward Sullivan wrote:
{John Dale Fisher applauds the buying of Goosebumps Books and encourages other librarians to buy all the "trash" that is out there. I have to say I am somewhat dismayed by the seemingly predominant attitudes among librarians that we should give the public whatever they want. If that is true, I guess all the shelves in the children's room should be filled with nothing but R.L. Stine, Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Sweet Valley High, Babysitters Club, Walt Disney Picture Books, and so on (ad nauseum).}

I had a teacher who strongly favored this approach. One of the points I tried to make in his class is that not *everybody* wants the same thing. All of us who believe in the importance of good children's books should try to remember that just because a great many children read "trashy" books, doesn't mean there aren't readers who want better books. Librarians have a responsibility to them as well, perhaps more of a responsibility. We mustn't start believing ourselves that the public *only* wants goosebumps books.

Originally posted on Thu, 2 Mar 1995 by Judy Volc

Given a budget to buy "everything" i.e. a VERY large budget, I'd be much more willing to buy trash. BUT it's hard to spend our few dollars on the equivalent of junk food. And I find that a fairly apt comparison.

My experience is that the kids who read Stine, Stratemeyer bks, etc., don't really remember what they have read - not like they remember Cleary's books or a story by Jane Yolen and other authors - the kind we adults want them to read. I would never take any book away from a child but do feel a responsiblity and even a mission to expose them to all the better and best stuff available. And to make the good books both available and attractive. I don't have a problem with their reading "junk" as long as they are also reading other, better stuff too. Any most of the kids I know do both. Just like they watch junk tv AND good tv.

Originally posted on Thu, 2 Mar 1995 by Kaia Wood

It really boils down to selection policy which I believe most public libraries have. The library I serve in is a "popular materials library" (i.e. not a research library or a school support with textbooks, etc.). Our mission is to provide patrons with the material they want both in fiction and non-fiction, audio, visual, etc. Because of this we buy five copies of every goosebumps title and still never have any on the shelf. It's not really our business to censor based on elitism any more than on ideology. Of course, we buy well reviewed titles as well, but I'd much rather spend my limited budget on another copy of a book kids will read (goosebumps and the like) than buy some musty history of chairs and such no matter how good the review. You may find once you work in a Youth Department at a public libray that you're just so glad to see them reading (and that you might be able to get them to move on from escape reading at some point). But then, let's be honest, don't most of us read some form of escape fiction at one time or another? I know mine has always been fantasy rather than horror, but the quality of some books were probably about the same as the Stine fiction. Oh to get away from it all!

Originally posted on Thu, 2 Mar 1995 by Dian Maureen Borek

Right On Kaia!

I have attended many children's workshops with similar complaints about reading materials for children. Let me share some of the gems from the Experts, I only wish I could recall names to give the credit where it is due: 1)when a complaint arose about sweet valley high "interfile your fiction so that the pulp fiction is surrounded by quality material."

2)When those 1,000's of goosenbumps are out, as they usually are suggest alternatives! Isn't that what our job is all about?

3)(this is my favourite from a wonderful English professor unfortunately I only recall her first name,Margaret, she was a guest speaker) "can you be absolutely 100% sure without any doubt that they are NOT reading other fiction as well?!" If we are honest with ourselves I doubt we can.

4)Read! Read! Read! One of our librarians in Mississauga studiously went through all the Sweet Valley High, Twins etc. and discovered classics and other books that the characters were reading in the books. We had bookmarks made up of these and they became a springboard for reading encouragement.

Lastly, this word is mine, we have them in the library; they are talking to us. When they ask "Where are R.L. Stine's books?" Talk back, get involved. We are in a commercial age competing with video and nintendo I have heard some wonderful approaches lately about "library commercials" We are the ambassadors, let's do our job and stop whining about children who won't read what we tell them to, just be glad they have library cards and are coming into our libraries. Remember, many of these children come from illiterate households or parents who don't read to them.

Originally posted on Thu, 2 Mar 1995 by Laura Manthey

As an elementary librarian in a public school, I would not choose to spend my limited funds on Goosebumps. The kids do love them. I have read them and find them uninteresting, not at all engaging. When I took this job in the fall, there were a total of 6 copies of Goosebumps in the inventory. They are always checked out and I keep hoping that they will be lost. One has been...hooray! I will not replace them, nor do I intend to buy more. This is not to say that I do not have controversial books nor books which are "junk" but that while I am there I will spend my funds on what I consider quality literature. The trash can be bought out of their own funds! Thanks for listening.

Originally posted on Thu, 2 Mar 1995 by John Dale Fisher

I plead guilty to the crime of trying to wear someone else's shoes. Those of librarians, for instance--telling them to buy all the "trash" they could find. I didn't ever mean for them to waste their funds on bad or popular literature; I was just cheerleading a movement to have libraries attract young readers to escapist, pulp-type fiction.

I am a middle-school, literature-based writing teacher. Stories model good writing, and the simplest, formulaic fiction that is popular shows kids good grammar, good punctuation, good plotting and good, publishable writing. I am a maverick at my schools (I teach part-time at a local university too) and writers don't become good writers until and only until they become good readers.

Let's remember that writers must consider purpose and audience to succeed in communicating on paper. Most fiction is probably to entertain (with some semblance of informing or persuading a good cause or two); but audience changes based on the author's whims. If Mr. Stine (are his ears burning YET?!?) were to write a "Fear Shelf" series for librarians, there's a pretty high probability he would crash and burn if he fails to meet his audience's high standards. But let's face it, readers: his books indeed succeed in getting many members of the plugged-in generation into reading. They probably don't remember what they read, but then they're not even remembering to bring pencils and texts to their classes either.

I use literature and novels of all sorts based on my kids' likes and abilities and let 'em go; by the end of the semester, when they want to read another book by the same author, I must say a hundred times, "If you liked X [trash writer], then you'll like something by this [good quality] writer...." Yes: both types of books can be found in the same library. And they all follow the same rules of grammar!

Pardon me for getting on a soapbox. Librarians, I don't want to offend any of you; if you ever had to work with me at a school, you'd love me because I make your place a pretty popular place to be. And my irresponsible kids sure raise a lot of cash for you with their overdues....

Originally posted on Thu, 2 Mar 1995 by Perry Nodelman

Well, golly. When I asked if anyone had some specific experiences of children's responses to Goosebumps books, I hardly expected all this passionate (and undeniably interesting) outpouring of adults' feelings about "trash" in general. What intrigues me about all this, and distresses me a little (well, be honest, P.:a lot) is how willing people are to express all these strong opinions about books they seem to have read very inattentively or not at all. So how, then, can you be so sure they're all trash? The only answer to that question I can think of goes something like this: Well, they must be trash, because they're so popular with so many children, and so many children wouldn't like them if they were actually any good." If that's the reasoning, I don't like it: it implies some pretty hefty disdain for the taste and good sense of many children. And equally disdainful is the idea that if children like these books then they can buy them themselves instead of taking them out of MY library--although that does certainly make it clear exactly whose library it is.

Anyway, for what it's worth. Here's my experience of Goosebumps. I got interested in them after I read that NY Times piece last summer about best-selling books. I figured that any series whose sales almost equalled the combined sales of the fifteen next most popular series was worthy of my attention. I expected real junk. I found some undeniably simplistic writing and characterization, but some very ingenious situations--many borrowed from adult films and novels, but handled in interesting ways. And in some cases these books evoke all sorts of subtle psychological issues-- never directly: they have the understatement of fairy tales. I was also suprised to find out how unformulaic they are: the main characters are sometimes underdogs who triumph, sometimes underdogs whole lose--and sometimes, underdogs who triumph by turning into monsters. I can't say that all 18 of the Goosebumps I've read are equally interesting-- but many of them are.

I'm not trying to say that these books are great literature-- although they may turn out to be: I'm not all that sure I know what great literature is, but it seems to me that the ability of a book to interest both an inexperienced young reader and an aging professor of English might suggest some sort of value. What I AM trying to say is that there's something a little sad about adults so sure they know better than children what's worthwhile that they don't even both giving the books enough attention to find out what's going on in them.

I think paying some attention is important because as I speculate about Goosebumps, I find myself being very suspicious of the values they take for granted--they might well be read as encouragiing the kind of agressive competitiveness that makes capitalism so scary sometimes. I need to know that's there, if it is, so I can help children realize it's there and think critically about it. I wouldn;t have known it was there if I just assumed the books were trash and decided to be disdainful of them just on principle.

Meanwhile, my thanks to those who have passed on some fascinating comments from children about Goosebumps. I'm particularly intrigued by the way these books create communities and form part of communal interaction--that's certainly a significant pleasure literature can offer, one I hadn't really thought of in those terms--and again implies a way of assigning positive value to these books.

Originally posetd on Fri, 3 Mar 1995 by KSH

I am new to this group and I enjoyed greatly all the discussion going on about "trash" books. As a girl I read quite a few of them, as we all did. We are trying to teach children values. Since we cannot protect them from reading bad books, we just have to tech them to judge them on their own. Some people would consider Roald Dahl's books 'trash' - because everything is t urned upside down. I think that he is a great writer. Don't forget children are more intuitive than we are. Their feelings are just formed - and sometimes they are better judges on good and bad than we are. We lost the plain child's intuitivness as we grew up - sad but true.

Give children the so cold 'good' books, but let them also read what other children in their classroom like to read. Talk to them about these books, both good and bad. Tell them what you think abou it - that's the best way for them to learn.

Originally posted on Fri, 3 Mar 1995 by David K. Brown

This whole "trash-books" discussion reminds me of a novella I read sometime during the past year. I believe the title was "Call me Larry Peters" by Eric Kraft. It is part of his book "Little Follies," one of my favorite books, and though not a children's novel, certainly a novel of childhood.

In "Larry Peters" the narrator recalls his fascination with the "Larry Peters" series of books (reminiscent of the Hardy Boys or other Stratemeyer Syndicate books). Although the narrator reads these books voraciously, they are always somehow less interesting in actuality than the covers, and the titles, and the air of the forbidden that they carry with them.

This certainly reflects my own memories of the Hardy Boys. I read them because everyone else did, and because they were _never_ available in any library, and because they had dramatic titles and dramatic covers. I remember thinking the plots were pretty pathetic, and everyone talked very oddly (and wore "dungarees" and drove "roadsters"). But I read on, and all my friends read on. I wonder if any of us would have been so firmly attached to these books if we had been able to sign them out of the library, and hadn't invested a good chunk of our allowances in them (The figure $2.35 comes to mind. An outrageous price!).

The marvellous thing about Eric Kraft's book is that he is able to portray both the banality of the series and its fascination. It is not giving away too much of the story to say that the narrator begins to invent his own "Larry Peters" adventures, and later becomes the ghostwriter of the series...

Originally Posted on Fri, 3 Mar 1995 by Perry Nodelman

I've been asked to put my money where my mouth is, and suggest which particular ones of the Goosebumps novels I find interesting. Here's a few:

#2, Stay Out of the Basement: this involves a scientist father who ends up accidentally producing a plant clone of himself, and ends with the main character having to decide which of the two fathers with leafy heads he sees in front of him is the real one, and which one needs to be chopped down. A tale that's both Oedipal and vegetarian, what more can you ask?

#10, The Ghost Next Door: the protagonist suspects that the boy in the house next door is a ghost, and has to confront the fact that the boy is real, and she herself isn't. I realize this is a pretty cliched Twilight-Zone shtick--but think about it in terms of the games it plays with an inexperienced reader's ideas about identifying with a main character.

#13, Piano Lessons Can Be Murder: something of a take on that great old movie, The 5000 Fingers of Dr. T, that Dr. Seuss wrote. In this book, the piano school is run by a demented janitor who borrows the hands of students and attaches them to mechanical pianos.

#4: Another mad scientist book, this one about a camera that takes pictures of the future: Let's Get Invisible.

#6: Let's Get Invisible, featuring a mirror that absorbs you into it and replaces you with your mirror-image self, who of course is your darker shadow self.

#15: Yu Can't Scare ME! I find this one interesting mainly because it centers on the themes of competition that can be found everywhere in all the rest of the books. Here, the whole book centers on the issue of scaring and being scared: he who gets scared is a wimpy loser, and he who scares best wins most. The really interesting thing is, the protagonist is a whiny loser, not just to start with but even at the end--again, interesting in terms of our assumptions about identifying with underdogs.

Remember, I never said the writing was stylish--and I suspect the genius of these books, as will all popular literature, is that it plugs into things people like to hear and need to hear: what's interesting psychologically or ethically here may just be stuff that's happening in our culture currently. Which is to say, I think we can learn a lot about what the world at large is telling children they are and ought to be in books as widely absorbed as "just for fun" by kids. Just for fun means: turn your critical intelligence off, and let me bypass all your censors and get inside your brain.

Originally posted on Fri, 3 Mar 1995 by Karla Walters

Books that kids themselves find compelling but which adults find difficult to approve have always been part of childhood culture. Face it, kids want to conform to what is current in their lives. When I was young, comic books and MAD Magazine (which was brand new) were condemned as character-damaging by every adult I knew. So every kid wanted to read them. We wanted to read them because they WERE forbidden by adults, hence they were kids' private preserve.

Maybe the best way to get kids to avoid "bad" or 'trash" literature is to condone it and approve it?

I think, also, that kids ARE tuned in to the current culture and its real values, which at the moment happents to approve capitalism. The same thing was true 100 years ago when the hot-reading items for young readers were popular books by Horatio Alger and Joseph Altsheler.

While sophisticated adult readers find these books reflect some values they don't like, these books DID REFLECT the actual, operating values of the time--getting ahead by effort and hard work, and conquering and exploring virgin territory.

What is interesting to me is how much kids in every generation what to read books that in some way or other show kids doing 'what can't (or shouldn't) be done by adults.

Maybe the Goosebumps series have kids empowered in ways adults don't normally approve. This is certainly one factor in the popularlity of MAD Magazine. Alfred E. Newman refuses to worry. How many adults really want kids to read books reinforcing that idea?