Inane Amazon reviews of picture books
May. 31st, 2011 11:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulyI've said it before, and I'll say it again in response to each and every one of these (but, you know, say it in your head, I'm not retyping it every time) - some people just don't like to read.
Good Night, Gorilla
When I buy a book to READ to my son, I expect more than pictures. The pictures are nice, but from the high ratings I was expecting a lot more.
You see variations of this complaint on every wordless book, or nearly wordless book. This is a subcategory of my earlier comment, and it runs "For crying out loud, you're not supposed to turn off your brain at storytime!"
As time passed, and he grew to LOVE being read to, I still didn't like this book because there are VERY few words to it. It's mostly pictures and you have to talk about the pictures and I just don't care for that. Part of reading to your child is having them learn to follow along and recognize words, and that just doesn't happen with this book.
See? Doesn't like to read, at least, not to her kid for the sake of reading. Part of reading is so your kids learn to READ PRINT, DAMMIT! It's not so they enjoy stories, learn to understand how stories break down into parts, learn to figure out from context. No, it's so they learn TO READ PRINT.
More, More, More Said the Baby
I won't be reading this to my baby/toddler, I don't want him to pick up any bad language habits.
The rhythm and poetry of the words means nothing. Also, I suppose she thinks she doesn't talk enough to her child in the day, or something.
Chicken Soup With Rice
NOT EDUCATIONAL!!!
I bought this book expecting to be able to use it to help me teach the Months of the Year to my daughter. The little poems in the book are totally UNrelated to the months of the year. The only mention of months are at the top of the page.
Why does a book need to be educational if you like to read?
Chicka Chicka Boom Boom
Oh, and how do you think your child is going to learn the alphabet by memorizing this story? When I was young, yes, when I had to alphabetize things, I'd recite the alphabet song to myself, but that only included the letters of the alphabet, not a whole lot of other words in between. How is a child going to learn to alphabetize things (with any amount of speed) if he has to recite "A told B, and B told C, I'll meet you t the top of the coconut tree"? It will take them forever just to get to the letter D!
There's so much going on in this book, and this woman is fixated on the thought that it's probably not a good method for the ONLY way to know the alphabet.
(Because some people don't like to read.)
Sheep in a Jeep
my 2 year old loves books and i thought this would be a great one based on reviews. It's not for him, what 2 year old knows what weap, heap, etc is? The only words that rhyme in this book rhyme with sheep
Apparently this person has never heard of speaking to your child with a wide vocabulary, of pointing to pictures in books when they illustrate unfamiliar words, or of capitalization.
The "I think this vocabulary is too advanced for little ones" complaint is common, though. This is a second addition to my first statement, and it goes as follows: "For crying out loud, TALK to your kids! Teach them something!" Children who are read to have larger vocabularies than those who aren't - and the size of your vocabulary absolutely affects your reading comprehension later on! There is no reason to artificially limit your child's speaking or being-read-to vocabulary. Simplified texts are for early readers, not for babies!
But, like I said, that silly complaint pops up everywhere. Observe:
Moo, Baa, La La La
I read this book to my baby on and off and every time I trip at the big ol' Rhinoceroses! Come on Ms. Boynton, your readers can hardly say goo goo and moo moo why such a big word.
It could have been water buffalos or plane old "rhinos" or for that matter "big hippos"
If your baby is reading, congratulations. Me, I read *to* the nieces when they were babies - and I could handle the word "rhinoceroses" just fine.
Also:
Mama, Do You Love Me?
Now, I will say that the "Big vocabulary!" complaint here at least makes SENSE because the words ARE unusual. (And at least it's better than the two competing complaints about this book, aka "Your child should never even ASK that question! How terrible that you encourage them to doubt your love!" and "Who the heck loves their kid when she misbehaves? Your kid should know nobody likes them when they misbehave!")
There are about 10 words in this book I could not define without pulling out the dictionary. Heck..a few I can't even pronounce!
I'm all for introducing children to different cultures (such as the Eskimo culture depicted in this book) but this book is intended for babies and toddlers, who are barely getting the hang of their own culture. By the time my child can read this book on her own, she won't ask, "Mama, do you love me?" She'll ask, "Mama, What's a ptmargin egg and a mukluk?"
What I really don't get is why these people were never taught in school, as I was, to look for context clues. We were explicitly taught this in school, and even did little reading comprehension exercises with nonsense words to help us learn to figure things out in context. The big edition of this book has a glossary, but I didn't need that to look at the picture and figure out that a ptarmigan egg is a big egg of some creature (presumably a ptarmigan), that a mukluk is a type of clothing, probably a boot, and that an umiak is a type of boat. When the nieces ask this sort of question, do you think I answer them? No, I tell them to think about it and help them work it out! Sheesh. But, again, some people would rather not have to engage their brains while reading.
I Love You the Purplest
This book had a very cute premise; how do I love two children the same. However, the title was never fully explained. You had to draw your own conclusion, so I felt it fell short of helping a child get "the purplest" concept.
Yes, heaven forbid you or your child have to talk about the book or THINK after reading it!
Jamberry
I read of all of the reviews and it sounded good. However, after...reading it, I realized that it was a little too fanciful for me. I don't mind a made up word or two but we're trying to teach our kids words and there are too many fanciful things "shoeberry, moonberry, cloudberry, trainberry, zoomberry raspberry rabbits, etc." Yes... I'll admit that there are some Dr. Seuss books that I don't like for the same reason. It started out cute and the illustrations are warm and friendly but as a teaching tool it rates really low with me. I'll be returning it.
All books must use Real WordsTM only! Otherwise those poor children will never learn to talk, because except from books they have no contact with other people at all!
(Notice that the book is only good as a teaching tool. Some people....)
Blue Hat, Green Hat
I usually like Boynton books but I'm not a fan of this one. It's subject matter and writing is terrible. "Blue hat, green hat, oops." It's that same sentence repeated for about 6 pages, switching out hat for socks, pants and shoes. There is no story. There's nothing to teach my daughter from reading this book, nor anything that could spark creativity. It's just boring.
Yup, books are for teaching, even for the babies.
Bark, George!
I have a difficult time reading this to my child because the english is so poor. ex: George's mother says to him "Ducks go quack-quack. Dogs go arf. Now bark George. George went: oink". The use of "go" instead of say and "went" instead of said drives me crazy. I don't want my child to grow up thinking this is correct. The book also makes reference to George seeing a "vet" instead of a veterinarian or a doctor. I will have to put this one away before my daughter begins to read on her own!
I have no idea where this man got his kindergarten graduate degree, but it probably wasn't some English-speaking nation. The ignorant things people come up with! Don't say vet, don't say go, argue with Merriam-Webster and the OED, why don't you! (But you know, nitpickers, it's not because they love the language, whatever they say.)
Good Night, Gorilla
When I buy a book to READ to my son, I expect more than pictures. The pictures are nice, but from the high ratings I was expecting a lot more.
You see variations of this complaint on every wordless book, or nearly wordless book. This is a subcategory of my earlier comment, and it runs "For crying out loud, you're not supposed to turn off your brain at storytime!"
As time passed, and he grew to LOVE being read to, I still didn't like this book because there are VERY few words to it. It's mostly pictures and you have to talk about the pictures and I just don't care for that. Part of reading to your child is having them learn to follow along and recognize words, and that just doesn't happen with this book.
See? Doesn't like to read, at least, not to her kid for the sake of reading. Part of reading is so your kids learn to READ PRINT, DAMMIT! It's not so they enjoy stories, learn to understand how stories break down into parts, learn to figure out from context. No, it's so they learn TO READ PRINT.
More, More, More Said the Baby
I won't be reading this to my baby/toddler, I don't want him to pick up any bad language habits.
The rhythm and poetry of the words means nothing. Also, I suppose she thinks she doesn't talk enough to her child in the day, or something.
Chicken Soup With Rice
NOT EDUCATIONAL!!!
I bought this book expecting to be able to use it to help me teach the Months of the Year to my daughter. The little poems in the book are totally UNrelated to the months of the year. The only mention of months are at the top of the page.
Why does a book need to be educational if you like to read?
Chicka Chicka Boom Boom
Oh, and how do you think your child is going to learn the alphabet by memorizing this story? When I was young, yes, when I had to alphabetize things, I'd recite the alphabet song to myself, but that only included the letters of the alphabet, not a whole lot of other words in between. How is a child going to learn to alphabetize things (with any amount of speed) if he has to recite "A told B, and B told C, I'll meet you t the top of the coconut tree"? It will take them forever just to get to the letter D!
There's so much going on in this book, and this woman is fixated on the thought that it's probably not a good method for the ONLY way to know the alphabet.
(Because some people don't like to read.)
Sheep in a Jeep
my 2 year old loves books and i thought this would be a great one based on reviews. It's not for him, what 2 year old knows what weap, heap, etc is? The only words that rhyme in this book rhyme with sheep
Apparently this person has never heard of speaking to your child with a wide vocabulary, of pointing to pictures in books when they illustrate unfamiliar words, or of capitalization.
The "I think this vocabulary is too advanced for little ones" complaint is common, though. This is a second addition to my first statement, and it goes as follows: "For crying out loud, TALK to your kids! Teach them something!" Children who are read to have larger vocabularies than those who aren't - and the size of your vocabulary absolutely affects your reading comprehension later on! There is no reason to artificially limit your child's speaking or being-read-to vocabulary. Simplified texts are for early readers, not for babies!
But, like I said, that silly complaint pops up everywhere. Observe:
Moo, Baa, La La La
I read this book to my baby on and off and every time I trip at the big ol' Rhinoceroses! Come on Ms. Boynton, your readers can hardly say goo goo and moo moo why such a big word.
It could have been water buffalos or plane old "rhinos" or for that matter "big hippos"
If your baby is reading, congratulations. Me, I read *to* the nieces when they were babies - and I could handle the word "rhinoceroses" just fine.
Also:
Mama, Do You Love Me?
Now, I will say that the "Big vocabulary!" complaint here at least makes SENSE because the words ARE unusual. (And at least it's better than the two competing complaints about this book, aka "Your child should never even ASK that question! How terrible that you encourage them to doubt your love!" and "Who the heck loves their kid when she misbehaves? Your kid should know nobody likes them when they misbehave!")
There are about 10 words in this book I could not define without pulling out the dictionary. Heck..a few I can't even pronounce!
I'm all for introducing children to different cultures (such as the Eskimo culture depicted in this book) but this book is intended for babies and toddlers, who are barely getting the hang of their own culture. By the time my child can read this book on her own, she won't ask, "Mama, do you love me?" She'll ask, "Mama, What's a ptmargin egg and a mukluk?"
What I really don't get is why these people were never taught in school, as I was, to look for context clues. We were explicitly taught this in school, and even did little reading comprehension exercises with nonsense words to help us learn to figure things out in context. The big edition of this book has a glossary, but I didn't need that to look at the picture and figure out that a ptarmigan egg is a big egg of some creature (presumably a ptarmigan), that a mukluk is a type of clothing, probably a boot, and that an umiak is a type of boat. When the nieces ask this sort of question, do you think I answer them? No, I tell them to think about it and help them work it out! Sheesh. But, again, some people would rather not have to engage their brains while reading.
I Love You the Purplest
This book had a very cute premise; how do I love two children the same. However, the title was never fully explained. You had to draw your own conclusion, so I felt it fell short of helping a child get "the purplest" concept.
Yes, heaven forbid you or your child have to talk about the book or THINK after reading it!
Jamberry
I read of all of the reviews and it sounded good. However, after...reading it, I realized that it was a little too fanciful for me. I don't mind a made up word or two but we're trying to teach our kids words and there are too many fanciful things "shoeberry, moonberry, cloudberry, trainberry, zoomberry raspberry rabbits, etc." Yes... I'll admit that there are some Dr. Seuss books that I don't like for the same reason. It started out cute and the illustrations are warm and friendly but as a teaching tool it rates really low with me. I'll be returning it.
All books must use Real WordsTM only! Otherwise those poor children will never learn to talk, because except from books they have no contact with other people at all!
(Notice that the book is only good as a teaching tool. Some people....)
Blue Hat, Green Hat
I usually like Boynton books but I'm not a fan of this one. It's subject matter and writing is terrible. "Blue hat, green hat, oops." It's that same sentence repeated for about 6 pages, switching out hat for socks, pants and shoes. There is no story. There's nothing to teach my daughter from reading this book, nor anything that could spark creativity. It's just boring.
Yup, books are for teaching, even for the babies.
Bark, George!
I have a difficult time reading this to my child because the english is so poor. ex: George's mother says to him "Ducks go quack-quack. Dogs go arf. Now bark George. George went: oink". The use of "go" instead of say and "went" instead of said drives me crazy. I don't want my child to grow up thinking this is correct. The book also makes reference to George seeing a "vet" instead of a veterinarian or a doctor. I will have to put this one away before my daughter begins to read on her own!
I have no idea where this man got his kindergarten graduate degree, but it probably wasn't some English-speaking nation. The ignorant things people come up with! Don't say vet, don't say go, argue with Merriam-Webster and the OED, why don't you! (But you know, nitpickers, it's not because they love the language, whatever they say.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-06-02 02:53 am (UTC)I'm going to stop reading your post, lest the reviews you quote cancel out the awesome of this line.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-02 03:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-02 06:03 pm (UTC)Yes, I'm aware it's Thursday.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-31 04:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-03 02:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-31 04:38 pm (UTC)"oink" is not a word, it's a noise. So you don't "say" it. Ducks and dogs very rarely "say" anything, either (well, Gaspode the Wonder Dog apparently said "woof", and very disconcerting it was too for those who heard him.)
Does anyone use the full "veterinary surgeon" rather than "vet", except on a business card or CV?
Also, if I'd met the word "ptarmigan" when reading on my own, and asked for parental assistance, they'd have helped me get the OED off the shelf, probably followed by the right volume of the Animal Encyclopedia and/or Children's Brittanica.
May I join you in head-desking?
no subject
Date: 2011-05-31 04:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-01 07:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-31 04:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-31 04:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-31 05:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-31 09:54 pm (UTC)It could have been water buffalos or plane old "rhinos" or for that matter "big hippos"
Come on COMMA Ms. Boynton....and it would be "plain" rhinos (rhinoceri?), unless the animals in question are riding around in a 747. With English skillz like these, no wonder the critic is bitching about "big wordses".
Oh, and by the way, cloudberries are not "fanciful." They look like salmonberries but taste kinda like rosehips, are native to Scandinavian areas and can be bought in preserved form at some import shops (I bought mine at Ikea).
no subject
Date: 2011-06-01 12:07 am (UTC)At any rate, the point remains that fanciful, fun writing is not damaging to children.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-01 10:14 am (UTC)