
Years ago, I came across someone a little older than my kids who refused to read Heinlein juveniles because “they’re dated.”
Uh… note this was someone in his thirties. There might be some legitimate claim that the language, being dated, would be difficult for new readers, but even that, surely not with a mere fifty years difference.
Meanwhile my kids grew up reading Heinlein juveniles, and Enid Blyton books most of them taking place just before or during WWII in an England that no longer exists, and it never occurred to them that it was wrong in some way.
Note this is not arguing there isn’t a reason for “updated” Heinlein juveniles — not updating the books but writing something like. Jeff Greason and I had talked about them, oh, five years ago, but my life has been in a black hole since. If I can get myself healthy and disciplined, and I’m not too old by then, I’d love to try it because — but that’s because what the juveniles accomplished in terms of getting kids interested in current day space science and exploration might not work too well when the science in the books is outdated and the dates in the past. Now, I just think I’m the worst possible author for them, even in collaboration. Someone like Laura Montgomery would do so much better. But if no one else will step up, I’ll try. And a certain need might be adduced, due to the timing and nature of the books. The juveniles can now be read as alternate universe, but for kids just getting their feet into what reality is, they can be confusing.
And yet, my kids reacted to them exactly the same way kids in the fifties did, and got interested in science anyway. 12 year old younger son insisted on writing lengthy explanations of how our understanding of the solar system has changed and also verifying all the calculations, but that’s because he’s broken in a very specific way.
So, yes, in this specific case updating might be needed for the non literary purpose. And yet, the characters and situations still grab, and still speak to kids today. (And the language isn’t that difficult. If your kids find the language difficult, teach them phonics and give them a dictionary. If your kids taught themselves to read and can’t find things by following alphabetical order get them an electronic dictionary. Either an ap, if you let them have phones, or its own gadget, which they do sell. I know. we had to get it for younger son, or we’d never get anything done answering “Mom/dad, what does x mean?”
However, in most cases, unless you’re so extremely unimaginative that you can ONLY read present day things, set exactly in the time you live in or you can’t figure it out, (this dysfunction must be related to the “I have to have a character I identify with” obsession. Both are unfathomable to me, who have read characters in strange and alien worlds since…. ever.) you can follow along with the story. Even stories from the 19th century or before. Sure, our way of life has changed. but not so much that medieval fairy tales are opaque, so why will other stuff be?
A friend suggested that like all the other year zero stuff it is because the left thinks human nature is so malleable that we become completely other every five or ten years.
This is nonsense. Not only do I read with pleasure books written in the 20s or 30s, but books about writers often give me a sense of commonality with these long-dead people. Until Indie, nothing much had changed in trad pub. Not for us, bottom tier producers — which is what writers are — so, you know, it’s reassuring.
I actually think that’s the real reason for ‘can’t” and ‘don’t’ read old books from all the usual suspects, and some idiots on our side, who go along to be hip.
If you read old books, you not only catch everything that didn’t work, but all the things that did. And you catch the similarities in ideologies being sold as the opposite (no, seriously. read books of the seventies and what the “nice” people in the West thought of Hitler.)
Of course the most insidious betrayal, now being done to every book, but being done Enid Blyton for decades, for “marketability” is the continuous “updating” of books, that show the Famous Five at the turn of the century with cell phones and computers.
This is insulting in assuming kids can’t bridge the gap and also in outright lying to children about how those times were.
They fall under my “stupid lies” ban. So, while I still recommend Enid Blyton, try to find them used and on paper.
Oh, yeah, and all the “bigotry” that they’re now eliminating from her and Agatha Christie’s and all 20th century books: some of it is actual bigotry. There is a massive streak of anti-semitism in great Britain for instance, and it comes through loud and clear in places.
Why it shouldn’t be revised and removed: Because even seeing bigotry that is out of fashion and/or rightfully despised in our time, gives us a feel for how a time or place can fall into unconscious bigotry, how otherwise good people can go around knowing in their heart of hearts that all blonds are whatever, or all people with pink pokadotted clothing are evil.
Knowing this, in turn, will help us realize when our own culture is guilty of demonizing entire groups. It might make us stop before it’s too late.
Because, you know, things change a lot, but human nature is universal and well nigh eternal. Not only can’t we bring about the perfect Homo Sovieticus, we change very slowly and fractionally. And at any time we can go “full natural” again. (Look at the French revolution. Or World War II.)
Reading old books allows us to see our own prejudices through the eyes of the past.
Which is why it’s invaluable.
And why would-be tyrants of every stripe hate it.















































