Age-appropriate reading list

>Could you please suggest any improvements to the list? I'm sure you have formed an opinion of all the books you've read.

Im too much of a new reader unfortunately, merely read my native languages books every once in a while. Keep up with the good work though.

I'm pretty sure every kid in the us reads the crucible at like 16 in school.

Also why waste time reading trash like Dan Brown?

I think most booky people follow a kind of kids books>ya trash>classics kind of route

So I'd do a more general breakdown

Till about 10 very easy literature for children, till about 14 easy classics like Alice, Verne, from 14 to 16 should be things like Shakespeare, Steinbeck, Hemingway, Conrad.

After that start with le greeks and fill in the gaps of the cannon.

>ctrl f
>graveyard book
>0 hits

Shakespeare can be read unabridged by native speakers from age 14. I mean you have the Canterbury tales at age 15, but Shakespeare at 20.

>Dan Brown
Seriously, no.

>Ulysses at age 17
...

>Count of Monte Cristo, a 1,200 page book, at age 14

Harry Potter book 1 can be read by 9 year olds (not sure about the later ones).

>The Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice
kek

Count of Monte Cristo may be long but it's still an easy read. Fantasy and shit like harry potter often have thousands of pages

There are hundreds of books [even those part of a series] [even non-fiction] that are not included in the list I have posted so far.
I believe the final list will be a [several] 1000 strong, and that too, only in English. For multiple-language speakers, it is recommended that try to maintain a balance in reading from all of the languages they know.

I'm waiting for other Veeky Forumserati to join the thread and post their opinions, so that the list can be expanded and appended.
I would hope the thread survives for long.

It's okay.
Thanks anyway and good luck.

thank for your suggestions.
seems quite logical.

will remove dan brown []

>Ulysses
>Monte Cristo
as i've not read them, i'm not sure where to put these.

>Harry Potter
it's more about the fact that the reader can associate with the character of the same age group.

>Anne Rice
it's niche but perhaps the best vampire book out there [for the kids who like that kind of books].
you'd notice i didn't put in meyer or rachel caine.
I'm just trying to make the list marketable.

>Dan Brown
>Paulo Coelho
>Anne Rice
Seriously?
Also, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time was year 10 (16 year olds) reading for my school. And, it sucked.

Listen user, I read most of the stuff in the 16-20 age from around 13 onward. Jane Austen when I was 12. This list is arbitrary and random once you hit the teenaged years, and you seem to have a strange perception of what teenagers can handle in terms of themes.

In fact, why are you doing this at all? I read Tolkien when I was 9. There is no definitive list for all children to follow.

I read it at 17. It's not too hard.

So you know, there are organizations that classify the reading levels of every book. Lexile and Renaissance Learning have them as an example.

You can lookup a book on arbookfinder.com and it will tell you the ATOS Book Level which is the grade equivalent.

Lexile numbers are also shown on many sites, and here's the grade equivalency: lexile.com/about-lexile/grade-equivalent/grade-equivalent-chart/

For example, Harry Potter 1 is Lexile 880L, so usually 5th grade and up.

>In fact, why are you doing this at all? I read Tolkien when I was 9. There is no definitive list for all children to follow.

To give a guideline for people not knowing where to start, obviously.

>This list is arbitrary and random once you hit the teenaged years
not everyone special snowflake can handle the theme and incidents described in many of the books.

>strange perception of what teenagers can handle in terms of themes
yeah, i must agree to not having much grasp of what today's kids can handle.

this.
thank you.

thank you for making the effort i put in the list [several days] futile.
Let me check out the websites you posted.
Do these websites also post any "everyone-should-read-these-books-at-least-once-in-their-lifetime" list?

>Do these websites also post any "everyone-should-read-these-books-at-least-once-in-their-lifetime" list?

Nope! Which is why your list is still useful, just the ordering can be improved.

Many teacher resources give reading recommendations, but they're all shit for the most part.

Aesops fables at 4 and Grimm at 5 seems a bit much

This list is way too specific.
You should follow some kind of age group thing. Not specific years.
>Children (under 10). fairytales, fantasy like Tolkien and Pratchett, some sci fi (I'm not a reader of it, but I'm sure there's some similar quality stuff), etc. Don't want anything too hard to put them off reading.
>10-12
Easy literature. To Kill a Mockingbird tier.
>13-15
Easier modernists like Hemingway and Woolf, Austen and the Brontes, Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, Sire Arthur Conan Doyle, Heller, Salinger, Dickens, Fitzgerald, Orwell etc.
16-18
Homer, Dante, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, David Forster Wallace, maybe Ulysses, existentialists like Sartre, Chaucer, Kafka, Vonnegut, Cervantes, etc. etc.

After 18
>start with the Greeks and work your way through western philosophy (maybe some eastern as well)
>fill in any gaps you have.

I'm just saying that they need to sort out the order a bit more.

>Which is why your list is still useful,
thank god.

>just the ordering can be improved.
yes, exactly the purpose of the list.

so, 7+ ?

great suggestion, thanks.
>age group
i started with a "a-book-for-every-month" kind of things for this list, and hence, i'd still like to get a bit more specific.
ok, maybe i'll make age-groupings of 2 years.
for example - age 2-3-4, age 5-6, age 7-8, age 9-10. what do you think?

ok.
in any case, the websites will help me to find a more precise level of reading for each book in my list.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I'm noting down all the suggestion in this thread, and hopefully in a few days i'll make a more expansive, detailed general.
thanks all, and please suggest more.

>age 2-3-4, age 5-6, age 7-8, age 9-1
That might work. I work in a library, and that's sort of how we group things. However, I think once you get to the larger stuff you might need more than a month, particularly as teenagers have school pressures and the like and can't just sit around reading.

What a pleb thread. Delete it.

I like the idea of having around 10 or so books per month, obviously people might have read some of the books already, dont like a certain author etc., to give a list to choose from.

Come now, OP probably just wants his darling progeny to turn out as genii and is asking for help. H/she can't help it if their initial suggestions are pleb tier.

>pleb thread
>literally a thread for ALL age groups - and that means including kids under 5
>hurr durr everyone should be as aged as me now.
conceited much?

>people might have read some of the books already, dont like a certain author etc., to give a list to choose from.
yes, agreed.
and the list will help them in choosing other readers and books to read.

>ctrl+f "the little prince"
>0 results

Fuck all of you.

Yeah, that should definitely be there.

yeah, how about you close the tab?

after perusing through those websites a bit i'm thinking of working on a website of my own, with tags and all.

>darling progeny to turn out as genii
what's wrong in wanting well-read, smart kids?

> initial suggestions are pleb tier
come on now, i literally posted the most popular books. just because you personally don't like them doesn't make the most popular books pleb tier.

>Fuck all of you.
all you had to say was, "include 'the little prince' by 'Antoine de Saint-Exupéry' in the age ??

what age group, then?

>all you had to say was
Don't tell me how to meme tripboi.

Pleb literally means a commoner. So, the popular books are pleb tier by definition.

>what age group, then?
Pretty young, say 9-10. But you can get something out of it at most ages.

>Don't tell me

>what's wrong in wanting well-read, smart kids?
forcing them to read certain things at a certain age will never make your kids well-read, or smart. a prescriptive list is a bad idea for a variety of reasons, not least that it assumes the variety of human experience and taste to be limited and if you want to raise a child like that, you might as well start them on a hardcore home-schooling-J.S-Mill programme of Greek and Latin for all the natural relevance it will have to them.

>this is what a retarded YA forcing parent sounds like

kys

"ochi"

>what's wrong in wanting well-read, smart kids?
There's no more surefire way to make a kid hate something than to force them to do it. The same goes with readers.

A child will either be a book worm or not. Aside from reading to them before they can read themselves and leaving books in easy grasp, there's not much you can do to force it.

In fact, most kids actually go through a phase of reading boring repetetive crap when they're learning, and making them read other stuff and miss this important repetition step will actually be a detriment to their reading ability.

Don't tell them what to read, once they start it they will read quality when they're ready.

...

That's only true as a result of poor teachers and public schools.

If parents read your kids will read. If you talk about books your kids will read. If you read to your kids your kids will read.

Books are fundamentally conversation between the reader and the author and are meant to be discussed and talked about. You can't force interest in books but you can make books interesting. Generally just don't be a shitter parent that doesn't talk to their kids or do stuff with them.

Schools have nothing to do with it. It's parents that make a reader.

I agree, but you can't force books down a kids throat. You can suggest, and as a parent you should DEFINITELY suggest things, but you shouldn't make certain books mandatory at a certain age and whatnot. It takes all the pleasure of discovery away from the process of becoming well read.

>forcing

>force

>force

let me be clear - i do not yet have kids. come to think of it, i do not even have a girlfriend right now
and no, i will never force anything on my kids.

also this - the purpose behind this list is that i, myself, want to read all these books, even if it takes me my whole life.
meanwhile, i thought i could help others in figuring out which book was worth their time by making a list as i was going to spend my time reading them anyway.

some essentials based on my reading in life

>Younger Ages
Neil Gaiman - The Graveyard Book
Terry Pratchett - The Colour of Magic & The Light Fantastic
William Goldman - The Princess Bride
Hillaire Belloc - Cautionary Verses
Ray Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451

>Teenagers, Young Adults
James Joyce - Dubliners & A Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man
Ernest Hemingway - The Sun Also Rises
F Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
Thomas Pynchon - The Crying of Lot 49 & V
Various Writers - Matthew, John, Job, Daniel, The Pentateuch, Revelation

>Adults
James Joyce - Ulysses
Marcel Proust - In Search of Lost Time
William Shakespeare - Macbeth, Othello, Hamlet, King Lear
Thomas Pynchon - Mason & Dixon
Andrei Bely - Petersburg

>>forcing
m8 thinking there's anything that's age appropriate is going to force the kid. even limiting the selection doesn't make sense, because kids will request books if they're into reading. interest in books doesn't develop linearly and kids are great at depth first; any given kid could be obsessed with pirates and dinosaurs and then the age appropriate thing between 0-adulthood is to let the kid sperg out about dinosaurs and not be disappointed he thinks your Dan Brown collection is boring and lacking in dinosaur parts.

but this idea that your kid should be reading x by y year reeks of nervousness about your own development as a reader. whether x is Harry Potter or Defoe, that idea is retarded if you have ever met kids and their peers are better at leveraging societal pressures upon them. what encourages reading in kids is that they really want to know more about x and will read schlock or research papers to find out more once you tell them they can find things out from books.

what relieves the anxiety you're actually feeling and projecting on development of children is knowing there's no objective standard- if you haven't read A Little Princess by 12 years old that doesn't mean your deprived childhood will prevent you from reading it now or reading other things now, or make the book harder to read now (though it might be more feelsy as an adult and make you cry in front of children who request it). if you want to read YA like Dan Brown as an adult, keep it on your list. it's not good, it might even make you unlearn some things, but if you want to know what's going on inside Dan Brown and his readers' heads, you go for it like a six year old who wants to excavate his own therizinosaurus and needs to work out if his backyard or the park is more fertile ground.

dude, what is wrong in having a thread that discusses whether a certain book would be too much for young, impressionable minds? you think you can only rape kids using your AAA battery dick? words can leave psychological and emotional scars as well.

just close the tab, mate!

At what age does reading start where you live?
I was taught at 4 by my parents but reading isn't part of the school program until you're 6. 99% of kids here wouldn't be able to keep up with that list.

>The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
>Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

>At what age does reading start where you live?
usually, it's the bed time stories that turn into "i wanna read myself now".
could be anywhere after 3 or 4 depending on how quick the kid is.

i just included ages 2 and 3 for the parents who don't know what book to get for the little baby's night time story telling.

your point being?
yeah, i hate that commie cunt myself but you really gotta know what you are hating.
also, it's a personal list, not necessarily a must-read recommendation.

>Inferno by Dante
>Ulysses by James Joyce
>Finnegans Wake by James Joyce
>Odyssey by Homer
>The Iliad by Homer
>Animal Farm by George Orwell
>Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell
>War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy
>Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
>The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde
>Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace

Come on man.

complaining without suggestion is just whining.

A knowledge of Shakespeare and the Bible would be useful before reading a lot of what you've listed, so I'd put those earlier.

Finnegans Wake is the most difficult book in the language, so I'd leave that as late as possible.

I never read the crucible, 24 graduated high school and college

>all that Dan Brown

Are you fucking retarded? That's like 7 Dan Brown books. Even if it's just to know, that's excessive. Why wouldn't you suggest Jack Reacher or any Reilly book or even Grisham. Literally any other airport fiction writer is probably better.

Did your hypothetical person suffer a car crash just before their 18th birthday and end up with brain damage, because it seems strange they'd read Tolstoy, Joyce and Wallace and then the next year start reading Dan Brown like it's a natural evolution.

>yeah, i hate that commie cunt myself but you really gotta know what you are hating.
She's quite literally the opposite of a "commie cunt".

I liked reading up until 2nd grade, stopped, started again a couple years after graduating college. EVERY fucking English teacher talks exactly the way you do, they all think that my disinterest is because all the OTHER teachers are bad, and they're going to be the inspirational guide that let's the reader inside me fly free like a butterfly, and they ALL just annoyed the shit out of me. Meanwhile, if they just stopped "teaching" this shit, I'd believe I'd have been reading on my own the whole time, and would be much more advanced than I am now. Fuck off, you're the problem. And kids can pick out their own books, because they know what interests them more than you do.

I am proof of this being false

>dude, what is wrong in having a thread that discusses whether a certain book would be too much for young, impressionable minds?
it assumes that kids all develop at the same rate and that they all have similar interests by age. which they don't, which you would know if you were using them as more than proxy to discharge your anxiety through.
>zomg protect the children
yeah that's always an adult trying to censor fairy tales because the wolf eating humans is adult fear while the kids tolerate it well. coraline was literally written to prove that point of adult misinterpretation, which means a YA hack can even work out where you're wrong.

you're neither protecting children nor providing a developmental framework of worth for them: stop deluding yourself you could do either of those things, or that doing either of those things is prerequisite to working out your own reading list. it's not, and you're retarded enough children would be lucky to never meet you. stop pretending they're the reason why you didn't get to read Robinson Crusoe already, the reason you didn't read it at five isn't because it would scar you, but because you at five or any age since didn't give a fuck about Crusoe.

I went through a Dan Brown phase when I was 16. I still remember the basic plot of most of his books so that's gotta say something 12 years later.

>that's excessive
as i said in OP, the list is my personal and OPEN to suggestion.

>Jack Reacher or any Reilly book or even Grisham
sure, i'll append those in the list.

>opposite
no such thing

>Tolstoy, Joyce and Wallace ... to....Dan Brown like it's a natural evolution.
this is why i made the thread, to know which book deserves a place in which age group.
instead of just crying foul, suggest correct placing.

>which they don't
and hence more than 1 book for every age. no one said that you can't go back and read at a 4th grade level if you in the 10th grade.
and hence my assertion in OP that more suggestions and amendments are welcome.

>your anxiety
yeah, let's not go there right now please.

>kids tolerate it well
just because they know the word and what it mans doesn't mean they don't get negatively affected by it.
also, the list is not complete or final in shape or form as I stated in OP. it is open to changes.

>where you're wrong
okay, i am wrong.
how would you correct me then? aside from crying "boo hoo you are wrong" that is.

>the rest of all that finger pointing bullshit
okay bro, chill man, dude weed bro.

===========================

THE LIST IS OPEN TO CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.
SUGGEST POSITION CHANGE / REMOVAL / ADDITION.

Why are you making it by age at all, instead of like, levels? Do you think if someone doesn't read regularly until the age of 20, they can just start off reading the same books another 20 year old who has been reading a lot all their life does?

Even levels doesn't really work, because I think it would end up having to be non-linear, and eventually become so complex that the whole thing should just be thrown out. Kids can figure out generally what their own abilities and interests are better than others can, by giving them any sort of track I think you're more likely to fuck them up.

But levels instead of age groups would at least be an improvement

>and hence more than 1 book for every age. no one said that you can't go back and read at a 4th grade level if you in the 10th grade.
>and hence my assertion in OP that more suggestions and amendments are welcome.
well obviously you don't have a problem with that what with Dan Brown coming after Joyce, what I'm saying is that not only is trying to equate a reading age (even grade level ones) to books is futile beyond a heuristic, your particular heuristic is fucktarded.
>yeah, let's not go there right now please.
stop forcing it onto the youth to discharge it and we won't have to.
>just because they know the word and what it mans doesn't mean they don't get negatively affected by it.
kid, you're not a developmental psychologist. you're not even interested in kids in a casual empirical sense as far as i can discern. the reason why you're pretending you're concerned with children when you know nothing about them is precisely the same reason you would only make a list for you to read if it could be disguised under something done "for the children". this is for you, and part of what makes it worthwhile for you is that you can pretend children could be scarred, when they've done well for centuries with all kinds of degenerates like Coleridge, Dahl, the Grimms, Stevenson, and Shelley whispering all kinds of bloody mayhem at them before bedtime. they don't need to be saved from dinosaur fights just because you're behind on your reading.
>how would you correct me then? aside from crying "boo hoo you are wrong" that is.
by telling you how your list is not just pointless and condescending in a way that means you're the problem not the kids. the kids are alright, it's you that's fucking anxious as shit about this.
>okay bro, chill man, dude weed bro.
lulz, if you look up the quote chain you'll see i responded to a post where you were talking about me raping people as your argument. learn that you not the people you point fingers at are often the problem. it'll make it easier to find solutions.

i'm assuming that my target audience comprises of normal people with normal school lives - which the majority of us are. this isn't for special snowflakes who were home schooled or dropped out early or whatever.
kids figuring out for themselves is always the best case scenario, but this list is for those who have no idea what to read.
as i keep on pointing in my EVERY reply, the list not final or complete - it's like the first draft of a book - i'm sure the 6th draft will be worth sending to the publisher.

>trying to equate a reading age (even grade level ones) to books is futile beyond a heuristic
i'm sure someone would find this list useful. at least one user above has said so already.

>forcing
one of my reply above literally addresses this word.
i am not FORCING anything on anyone. it is a SUGGESTION list. google the meaning of the two word in the capital for the difference.

>for the children
i said "i'm HOPING that my list COULD be useful to kids who want to read".
never have i said that i made the list SPECIFICALLY for kids.i never said that i want to sell the list to kids or force it upon them.

>they don't need to be saved from dinosaur fights
who raped you in kindergarten, kid? did they ever got caught?

>just because you're behind on your reading.
what really is the purpose of this board if i can't share my reading list?

>you're the problem
ok.
do you know how to close the tab?

>people you point fingers at
oh boy, the classic "you started it" argument.

======================
to the people who were nice enough to suggest changes - thank you very much guys, I loved making this thread.
to the people who think this thread is a waste of space on Veeky Forums's server - ctrl+w does the trick on windows machines.

As I earlier perceived the answer to your question: the ones before age ~7, parents read to the kid. At seven kids usually go to school if not before, and learn to read themselves. It can be said that the majority of kids dont know how to read before going to school. I remember when I was a kid that around 1/5th of kids knew how to read in our class as a kid, at least thats what my mom told me when I asked her about it. My relative is a teacher and she said that the situation hasnt changed too much nowadays.

So IMO you should see those books as suggestions on what to keep close to hand in your bookshelf, if your kid wants to pick up something to read.

It sounds like youre the problem. You just didnt grasp what your teacher tried to teach you.

Imagine if teachers stopped giving a shit and then the people who actually were to get interested in reading because of the teachers guidance, wouldnt. You just didnt fit the image and think its all bullshit. Fucking selfish by you.

>i'm assuming that my target audience comprises of normal people with normal school lives
People within a normal school live are still a lot more varied than you're treating them

>as i keep on pointing in my EVERY reply, the list not final or complete
And I'm not suggesting that you've put the wrong books in or anything, I'm suggesting the whole concept isn't valid. It wouldn't matter if it were the 1000th draft, I don't think you should be giving out reading tracks like this, even if you're not forcing them, and it's just a friendly suggestion

You should note that this website is for adults (18 and up) only so therefore suggesting reading material for younger ppl would be pointless. Also, this is Veeky Forums so there definitely arent many, if any, "normal parents" that could follow the list.

Thats why I agree with the levels idea, it just sounds more natural. Reading can be started at any age, and not reading in one's native language makes things more difficult.

>i am not FORCING anything on anyone. it is a SUGGESTION list. google the meaning of the two word in the capital for the difference.
you seem to be forcing a projection onto children of them being easily scarred by words, to the point that ought to dictate what works we allow them access to. since, obviously, dan brown before 18 is going to damage you in ways that Twain or Stevenson won't at 9 or 10. what words exactly you thought the latter was going to scar them with i'm pretty sure are irrelevant to how fucktarded that is if your objective was not scarring children by the method you believe they will be scarred because even at a thematic level those books are more adult than you think from not reading them.
>i said "i'm HOPING that my list COULD be useful to kids who want to read".
i'm saying if it's useful at all it's where you've obviously failed to spot what could be considered adult or horrific content from not having read those books. what your (very failed) objective would do if properly implemented would be to remove those books with adult content you've recommended to eight year olds that eight year olds are perfectly capable of dealing with. i hope you don't read those books because while an eight year old will go unscarred by that book, you will read some of those victorian classics and shit yourself about an eight year old getting scarred. that won't help an eight year old.
>who raped you in kindergarten, kid? did they ever got caught?
dude if that's your response to letting kids have dinosaur fights, you should not be left near children. at all. ever.
>what really is the purpose of this board if i can't share my reading list?
that's a non sequitur to my actual point that the reason you're making this list about "kids" is exactly why you should not be allowed near kids or affect their reading habits. they really are better off without you, especially if you ever get to read a lot of those books which will give you even more anxiety about "saving" the children who really don't need your retarded "help"

want a recommendation: marina warner's reith lecture on children will tell you how your belief system about children will probably lead to you killing one for trespassing your fantasies about childhood.

well considering we were all forced to be there and take these classes, I think I have more right to complain if I was made worse off by it, than if we hadn't been forced in and others didn't benefit from it. But of course, you're missing the point, because I'm not talking about forcing kids to stop reading. Those same kids can fucking figure what their own reading abilities are, and then read according to that. IF they can't, then that's the first thing they actually need to be learning, how to measure their own interests and abilities. Much more important to life than any specific literature.

My point was simply that people generally wouldnt pick up a book if their teacher hadnt "forced" them to read/start reading it. Some people like the books, some dont. It doesnt matter which book is in question, but if it hooks just a handful of ppl to read more, and possibly even something that they woudlnt otherwise read, then the teacher has succeeded in my opinion.

Sure, I guess some people's interests towards reading might drop when literally forced to read something they dont want to, but I'd say thats a less evil of the two.

look may be my choice of words was wrong.

all i want is suggestion from Veeky Forums as to what a normal kid should be able to read and understand at what age.
obviously i don't want 4 year olds reading about holocaust or mass rapes, and hence the age-appropriation part of the thread.

if you can't simply tell me which book to include at what age, and which ones, as your personal opinion, aren't worth the time without getting into an internet-battle with me, then the purpose of this thread is lost.

also, now i wish OP had the option to 404 his own thread.

>My point was simply that people generally wouldnt pick up a book if their teacher hadn't "forced" them to read/start reading it
Well I think that's completely false. But even if it is, I don't even think it's possible to make them like it by forcing them to

Pippi Longstocking started my sexual fetish

>if i baaaaw more maybe he'll mistake me as a spokesperson for children
what a normal kid should be able to read and understand at what age not only has a great degree of variance in every age group, but also changes by country. americans go to school later than europeans, and consequently an american five year old reading precocious, but a european five year old reading is not. different regions place different emphasis on different writers: an irish student who hasn't read yeats is abnormal, while that's reasonable for a 12 year old in portugal.

>i don't want four year olds
m8, what fucking four year olds? you hopefully don't know any, but even on Veeky Forums, do you really think anyone would take a recommendation to give their 4y/o kid Mein Kampf who wasn't already detached from reality and living in a nazi compound? who do you think from us was going to recommend mass rapes in a way you wouldn't notice? (well, i suppose you haven't read a lot of what you recommended to kids under 13 because seemingly you wouldn't)
you have really strange beliefs about the world you inhabit, like that if Veeky Forums were of the mindset to give you age inappropriate books for children, asking them to not would stop them and not encourage them.
or that i'm not going light on what kind of idiot you are, despite you making rape accusations, and that means i must just want to be mean to you for no ends, rather than i'm being rather kind for how retarded and rude you are.

the good news in this is that you can stop freaking out about kids being scarred. you'll find out why when you work your way through your list and realise that you freak out as an adult over things that kids have been reading for decades at the appropriate age of eight with no lasting damage at all. it's really a much smaller problem entirely created in your head than what you're trying to make out with this thread. most people have the common sense to work out what an elementary school reading list is without giving the children the marquis de sade. you can stop worrying about that and start worrying about why you deeply believe anyone is giving a four year old 100 days of sodom

Op, why isn't the bible in this list?

cain and abel is triggering to vegetarians

...

Temptress

Your age 19 list should replace the age 17 one desu

IS this list only for fiction??

One of the best threads in a while.

>no Logomancer
pleb. I'm a word sorcerer.

>all this genre shit
Tbh, the child would be better off experiencing life and making friends then reading that cancer.

I got my little brother of 14 to read crime and punishment. I believe kids are willing to read anything that appeals to them.

I went through my Dan Brown phase when I was 14 and I'm illiterate

Hey, OP
Quick suggestion, I'd include A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket, maybe age 6 or 7. Nice work btw

Whoa, this is cool.