Georgia M. Green
Center for the Study of Reading
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

I begin my comments on the subject of differences in content and literary
structure between basals and trade books by saying that I find Bruce's
chapter provocative because I have been led, via a rather different route
to very similar conclusions. I address my remarks to the implications of
some of them for the appropriateness of adaptations in primary-level
basal readers.

When trade books are adapted to appear as selections in basal readers,
and sentence length, passage length, and vocabulary complexity are re-
duced, very often what gets left out (along with anything that might have
moved the reader to appreciate the author's wordcraft) is precisely the
details that contribute to story complexity and character development.
Because of this, important factors are absent that could have contributed
to reader involvement (and consequent interest and motivation).

My interest was originally in the language of basal reader stories, rather
than the content. I discovered that in 1908, Huey ( 1908/ 1968) had
criticized the available primers for being unnatural, inane, and discon-
nected. ¹ His criticism is as appropriate today as it was then. Despite
periodic controversies, the language of primary-level basals remains
stilted and unnatural. This is due at least partially, no doubt, to pressures

-175-