I was just reviewing books on Amazon, looking up negative reviews....

[conuly]

Not quoting any of them here.

One thing that really got me, as in it actually upsets me, is looking at picture books and seeing a review that the person in question didn't like it because although they found the book cute, funny, well-written, nicely illustrated, or this and that, they didn't like it because it's not up to their educational standards.

They say something along the lines of how books for their kids all have to have some sort of redeeming value - if they don't actively teach new vocabulary then they have to have a moral, if they don't teach geography than there should be some math in there.

I have two things to say here.

The first is that these people are often blind to the literacy-building potential of the books they're criticizing - they don't see the repetition, the clever wordplay, the onomatopoeia as helping language skills, which is entirely to their loss. (And they never, *ever* see use of non-standard language as a good thing, but that's beside the point.)

The second, more important point is this:

I don't think these people really enjoy reading.

Certainly, they can't see any point in reading for its own sake if they feel they have to choose books based on their dubious educational value.

Oh, I'm not saying that you shouldn't read books that have some form of lesson, or that it shouldn't be a factor in which books you pick out from the library. I just don't think it should be the defining factor.

It actually reminds me of a comment I got in the 8th grade. (That was with the English teacher who thought her interpretation of Julius Caesar was the only possible one, and didn't even realize "it was his destiny" was intended as a joke.)

I read all the time. She knew I read all the time. The whole class knew I read all the time. The whole *school* must have known, because random strangers sure kept asking me why I read all the time! I was easily identified by my nose in a book at all times.

If it weren't for my reluctance to do any work, I would clearly have had some of the best grades in her class. I certainly did well enough on the tests, with no effort or preparation whatsoever.

One day I'm entering or leaving class, and she noticed the book I was reading. Sixth Grade Secrets. I really liked that book. Still do, in fact. I mean, it's Louis Sacher, people!

And she stopped me and asked me why I was reading a book that was "too easy" for me.

I was confused and upset by the question then, but it took me a while to figure out why. Now I know, though.

I remember my IEP. By the 4th grade - four years before this incident - I tested as having a college reading level. While I doubt the woman knew exactly how well I read, she must have surely had some clue. It wasn't exactly a secret. And yet, she thought that I should treat reading as... as some kind of race, trying to improve myself. It wasn't enough to read well, or to enjoy reading. No, I had to read progressively harder books, simply because they're, what, difficult?

How stupid. How pointlessly, utterly absurd to say to a child!

This is why many children don't enjoy reading. It's not something they're naturally good at, they don't get that much practice at it either, and when they do read it's treated as a chore, something to do for its redeeming social value, not something to do because it's fun. Heaven forbid you buy a book for your child simply because you enjoy it - no, it has to do double duty and teach him something or it should just stay right there on the shelf!

And there's nothing wrong with learning from books. I read to learn easily as much as I read just for fun. It's just that, especially with children, the emphasis really ought to be on the fact that books are entertaining. Who cares if they educate? Your kids can spend their whole lives being educated, but that's not exactly going to make a lifelong reader out of them.

Now, I'm certain that the books these well-meaning adults ultimately choose for their children are also fun to read. At least I hope so. But I'm still irked at the suggestion that their priorities are superior because they only pick educational books for their kids. That's not a way to approach reading. Not a way to live your life. Just... not.

Comments

[sayga.livejournal.com]

I like this entry. I loved reading as a kid too (I'm too busy currently with the kids to do a lot of it lately, but still love it when I do), and sometimes as kids our mom had to punish us for reading TOO MUCH. She didn't punish us MUCH, because she was so glad we WERE reading, but sometimes we had to do OTHER things too.

[conuly]

My parents banned reading at the table, so I, at least, would try very hard to sneak books.

My sister was known for reading *two* books in bed at night, so that when they took away the drop book she'd have her real book to read :)

[brownkitty.livejournal.com]

I pretended to be scared of the dark for years so my parents would leave the hallway light on, so I'd have a reading light.

[tsukikage85.livejournal.com]

Great post!
I will say one thing, though. As an adult, I do find myself wishing I was more in the habit of reading more non-fiction. We have only have so many hours in a year, and there are lots of things I want to learn about on my own, but because I'm out of practice things above the density of comic books or teen books are often hard for me to stick with. *stares at my book on Japanese history I've tried to start twice already now*

[conuly]

That's one reason I keep trying to convince people to get their kids some non-fiction picture books as well as plain storybooks.

But there's no reason you have to be limited to only those books that are redeeming in some way, right?

[tsukikage85.livejournal.com]

Right.

[ncp.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's my entire childhood. I LOVED to read. I would read the back of the cereal box if I couldn't find anything else to read. But when it came to books, I was only allowed to read stuff that was "educational". So I read a lot of what is known as "Classic Literature" and non-fiction. If I wanted to read "The Babysitters' Club", which was the popular series at the time, I would have to sneak around to read it. And if I got caught I'd get in trouble for reading "trash".

I no longer consider myself "well read" because I can't bring myself to pick up a book due to all my hangups about what is "appropriate" reading material.

[conuly]

*hugs*

Ironically, didn't Claudia in the BSC have that same problem?

My parents didn't like me reading BSC books that much either, but they just made faces, they didn't ban it. (And, bonus, if I was dead-set on getting a BSC book they'd roll their eyes and buy me a "real book" as well. Two books, yay!)

[velvetchamber.livejournal.com]

By that logic, adults shouldn't read children's books either... and then only kids could read a lot of Roald Dahl's fiction... and that would just be wrong.

[conuly]

Some adults would say that Dahl has no redeeming social value and teaches no lessons.

Of course, the lesson "Sometimes life sucks and you just have to deal with it" doesn't count, even though it's actually *true*.

[sayga.livejournal.com]

I like this entry. I loved reading as a kid too (I'm too busy currently with the kids to do a lot of it lately, but still love it when I do), and sometimes as kids our mom had to punish us for reading TOO MUCH. She didn't punish us MUCH, because she was so glad we WERE reading, but sometimes we had to do OTHER things too.

[conuly]

My parents banned reading at the table, so I, at least, would try very hard to sneak books.

My sister was known for reading *two* books in bed at night, so that when they took away the drop book she'd have her real book to read :)

[brownkitty.livejournal.com]

I pretended to be scared of the dark for years so my parents would leave the hallway light on, so I'd have a reading light.

[tsukikage85.livejournal.com]

Great post!
I will say one thing, though. As an adult, I do find myself wishing I was more in the habit of reading more non-fiction. We have only have so many hours in a year, and there are lots of things I want to learn about on my own, but because I'm out of practice things above the density of comic books or teen books are often hard for me to stick with. *stares at my book on Japanese history I've tried to start twice already now*

[conuly]

That's one reason I keep trying to convince people to get their kids some non-fiction picture books as well as plain storybooks.

But there's no reason you have to be limited to only those books that are redeeming in some way, right?

[tsukikage85.livejournal.com]

Right.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, that's my entire childhood. I LOVED to read. I would read the back of the cereal box if I couldn't find anything else to read. But when it came to books, I was only allowed to read stuff that was "educational". So I read a lot of what is known as "Classic Literature" and non-fiction. If I wanted to read "The Babysitters' Club", which was the popular series at the time, I would have to sneak around to read it. And if I got caught I'd get in trouble for reading "trash".

I no longer consider myself "well read" because I can't bring myself to pick up a book due to all my hangups about what is "appropriate" reading material.

[conuly]

*hugs*

Ironically, didn't Claudia in the BSC have that same problem?

My parents didn't like me reading BSC books that much either, but they just made faces, they didn't ban it. (And, bonus, if I was dead-set on getting a BSC book they'd roll their eyes and buy me a "real book" as well. Two books, yay!)

[velvetchamber.livejournal.com]

By that logic, adults shouldn't read children's books either... and then only kids could read a lot of Roald Dahl's fiction... and that would just be wrong.

[conuly]

Some adults would say that Dahl has no redeeming social value and teaches no lessons.

Of course, the lesson "Sometimes life sucks and you just have to deal with it" doesn't count, even though it's actually *true*.