And more fun with amazon!
Jan. 15th, 2005 11:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Where the Wild Things Are
I cannot believe this book is a best seller. Max, the protagonist, is a wild, rude, annoying, little snot-nosed monster. The last thing I want is for my child to model her behavior after him! My daughter received this as a gift and it is now in the trash because I could not bring myself to give it away to another child.
I can't believe you threw out a book. I was raised with the idea that this is not acceptable. I guess we all have our morals, though - some of us talk about them with our kids, instead of trying to let the media do all the teaching.
I don't understand how this book is on the best seller's list. The illustrations are scary for young children. The educational value of this book is very negative. Instead of teaching of self discipline and respect for authority, this book promotes disobedience and violence. I know, for years, it has received glowing reviews. I disagree with all of them. This book entered the trash can the day it entered our home.
More people who commit violence against books. *sighs* I never found that the book really promoted a disrespect for authority, or violence. Nor was I ever scared by the illustrations. The covers of Sweet Valley books, on the other hand... *shudders* They just kept staring!
and he keeps repeating (quite annoyingly) that "the monsters rolled their terrrible eyes and showed their terrible teeth" because i think he couldn't think of anything else to say!
Repetition. In a children's book. I'm stunned.
Alexander And The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
I read this story to my 3-year old once then hid away. If I don't throw it away I will give it to the public library.
This story is an endless stream of whining about the little annoyances of life. Many of these annoyances are the result of Alexander's own actions and behavior.
If the purpose is to allow parents to discuss this cause and effect with children then, OK. Otherwise, it is an example of American society today. People behave selfishly and are so put out by the tiniest inconvenience.
So, wait. She understands that she can read this book and then discuss cause and effect with her kid - but instead she hides the book and wants to throw it away.
In my opinion, it sends the message that when things don't go your way, you just whine about it and "move to Australia". Sure, we have all been there, but don't we want to send our kids the message that we have the ability to turn a bad day around by taking a different look at things or even just taking a victory in making it through a bad day. When I read this book for the first time I kept waiting for the positive spin that helps kids to overcome life's struggles. I was very disappointed when I didn't get that.
*frowns* This woman's kid is four. When I was four and five and six I loved this book. I knew that Alexander wasn't really going to Australia, and that a lot of his problems were caused by himself. Maybe she just didn't get the joke?
This is not posting on an Internet forum about your favorite movies where you can write what, how much, and however you want; it's a book written for children, and we can't have blatant mistakes such as run-on sentences. Therefore, I'm wondering how this page, as well as many other sentences in the book, made it past the editor(s).
*snickers*
I'm sorry, I can't reply. I'm laughing at your inability to understand the point of writing from a child's point of view.
Negative people give off negative energy, and without ways to deal with this issue, this is not the kind of book I want children exposed to.
Okay, I never want to hear this phrase again in the context of reading. Your kid isn't "exposed to" a book, it's not a contagious disease. Your kid reads or doesn't read a book. If you don't want your kid reading a book, say that, don't say you don't want your kid "exposed to" the book.
More More More...
This book is not only a bad example for our children (you should never swing a child around by his arms !!!) but the improper english should be addressed. It is not a book I would recommend if you are educated and would like your child to be influenced properly. The pictures of the father in this book are perverted and should not be shown to kids... I would give this no stars if the rating system allowed it.
Well, youse all know what I think on the "proper English" front (and even if you didn't, I don't think the one phrase "catch that baby up" is going to warp your child for life....) but as for "perverted"... what the fuck? The guy is in shorts and a shirt and sandals. Everything's covered. Moron.
Sorry, I am definitely picky when it comes to the books I read to children and what type of knowledge or message they convey. I try my best to be as grammatically correct as possible when speaking to my 5 month old son (it's never too early) and my 4 year old stepson. I read this book to the both of them when I received it and, as soon as my stepson started repeating the words, I tossed it aside! YES, the MESSAGE IS cute but it's no wonder why so many people speak poor English. When children are not taught properly from the very beginning, it then becomes more difficult to correct them at a later age. The illustrations aren't the greatest either. (The idea of illustrating a variety of cultures was great though!)
Children speak as they're spoken to. One book is not going to mess up how they speak. No, really. No, REALLY.
I absolutely despise the text in this book! The grammar is improper and the odd word choices make it difficult to read aloud ("Little Pumpkin scoots away so fast Little Pumpkin's grandma has to run like anything just to catch that baby up.").
*frowns and tries this phrase out*
I don't know, I'm not having trouble reading it aloud, but maybe I'm alone here?
This book contains three babies with their caretaker, the father, grandmother, and mother. The children are seen having lots of fun with that person and screaming for more, more, more. Interesting that the second child, an African-American has a Caucasian grandmother. To an adult, they might be able to rationalize this, but to a child this may be very confusing why the parent does not look like the child. The majority of children reading this book is used to seeing children with relatives that look like them. If the author wants to make a statement of interracial relatives, why wasn't this done with child one and three?
Your kid won't get that confused. Trust me. If they do, they can ask you about it, and you can explain it to them. As for "why wasn't it done with the other families", well, maybe it has something to do with the fact that most families are not interracial.
I have 20 month old twins and one absolutley loves this book while the other one could care less. The illustrations are what bug me. I know I should judge the book on its outdated artwork, but when you have to stare at it all day long and read it over and over it gets to you! The dad wears flip flops and short shorts. If you're a stickler for proper grammar, you'll hate this book.
Well, that last sentence is certainly correct, though it seems like a bit of a non sequitur... *shrugs*
Having said that, the story is written in a style that reflects poor pronunciation and word usage ("dat" for "that"). I found myself having to substitute correct pronunciation and sentence structure for the actual words. Children at the age to whom the book is targeted may think the story as written reflects correct word usage -- they are very impressionable at two and three!
*stares*
*checks book*
Nope, it definitely says "that".
1) The first story shows a father throwing a baby in the air, and swinging him by his arms. Both these are terribly dangerous acts. Throwing a baby in the air can cause brain damage, and failing to catch him can cause severe injury or even death. Swinging a baby by his arms could dislocate the shoulders or cause other serious injury. This is not really safe for any age, but certainly VERY dangerous for a baby, whose body isn't that strong yet.
*headdesks*
You're not throwing your own kid! You can tell your own kid that this is dangerous. Gah! Honestly, am I missing something here?
I should do this more often. Maybe next time I'll brave the positive comments, huh?
I cannot believe this book is a best seller. Max, the protagonist, is a wild, rude, annoying, little snot-nosed monster. The last thing I want is for my child to model her behavior after him! My daughter received this as a gift and it is now in the trash because I could not bring myself to give it away to another child.
I can't believe you threw out a book. I was raised with the idea that this is not acceptable. I guess we all have our morals, though - some of us talk about them with our kids, instead of trying to let the media do all the teaching.
I don't understand how this book is on the best seller's list. The illustrations are scary for young children. The educational value of this book is very negative. Instead of teaching of self discipline and respect for authority, this book promotes disobedience and violence. I know, for years, it has received glowing reviews. I disagree with all of them. This book entered the trash can the day it entered our home.
More people who commit violence against books. *sighs* I never found that the book really promoted a disrespect for authority, or violence. Nor was I ever scared by the illustrations. The covers of Sweet Valley books, on the other hand... *shudders* They just kept staring!
and he keeps repeating (quite annoyingly) that "the monsters rolled their terrrible eyes and showed their terrible teeth" because i think he couldn't think of anything else to say!
Repetition. In a children's book. I'm stunned.
Alexander And The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
I read this story to my 3-year old once then hid away. If I don't throw it away I will give it to the public library.
This story is an endless stream of whining about the little annoyances of life. Many of these annoyances are the result of Alexander's own actions and behavior.
If the purpose is to allow parents to discuss this cause and effect with children then, OK. Otherwise, it is an example of American society today. People behave selfishly and are so put out by the tiniest inconvenience.
So, wait. She understands that she can read this book and then discuss cause and effect with her kid - but instead she hides the book and wants to throw it away.
In my opinion, it sends the message that when things don't go your way, you just whine about it and "move to Australia". Sure, we have all been there, but don't we want to send our kids the message that we have the ability to turn a bad day around by taking a different look at things or even just taking a victory in making it through a bad day. When I read this book for the first time I kept waiting for the positive spin that helps kids to overcome life's struggles. I was very disappointed when I didn't get that.
*frowns* This woman's kid is four. When I was four and five and six I loved this book. I knew that Alexander wasn't really going to Australia, and that a lot of his problems were caused by himself. Maybe she just didn't get the joke?
This is not posting on an Internet forum about your favorite movies where you can write what, how much, and however you want; it's a book written for children, and we can't have blatant mistakes such as run-on sentences. Therefore, I'm wondering how this page, as well as many other sentences in the book, made it past the editor(s).
*snickers*
I'm sorry, I can't reply. I'm laughing at your inability to understand the point of writing from a child's point of view.
Negative people give off negative energy, and without ways to deal with this issue, this is not the kind of book I want children exposed to.
Okay, I never want to hear this phrase again in the context of reading. Your kid isn't "exposed to" a book, it's not a contagious disease. Your kid reads or doesn't read a book. If you don't want your kid reading a book, say that, don't say you don't want your kid "exposed to" the book.
More More More...
This book is not only a bad example for our children (you should never swing a child around by his arms !!!) but the improper english should be addressed. It is not a book I would recommend if you are educated and would like your child to be influenced properly. The pictures of the father in this book are perverted and should not be shown to kids... I would give this no stars if the rating system allowed it.
Well, youse all know what I think on the "proper English" front (and even if you didn't, I don't think the one phrase "catch that baby up" is going to warp your child for life....) but as for "perverted"... what the fuck? The guy is in shorts and a shirt and sandals. Everything's covered. Moron.
Sorry, I am definitely picky when it comes to the books I read to children and what type of knowledge or message they convey. I try my best to be as grammatically correct as possible when speaking to my 5 month old son (it's never too early) and my 4 year old stepson. I read this book to the both of them when I received it and, as soon as my stepson started repeating the words, I tossed it aside! YES, the MESSAGE IS cute but it's no wonder why so many people speak poor English. When children are not taught properly from the very beginning, it then becomes more difficult to correct them at a later age. The illustrations aren't the greatest either. (The idea of illustrating a variety of cultures was great though!)
Children speak as they're spoken to. One book is not going to mess up how they speak. No, really. No, REALLY.
I absolutely despise the text in this book! The grammar is improper and the odd word choices make it difficult to read aloud ("Little Pumpkin scoots away so fast Little Pumpkin's grandma has to run like anything just to catch that baby up.").
*frowns and tries this phrase out*
I don't know, I'm not having trouble reading it aloud, but maybe I'm alone here?
This book contains three babies with their caretaker, the father, grandmother, and mother. The children are seen having lots of fun with that person and screaming for more, more, more. Interesting that the second child, an African-American has a Caucasian grandmother. To an adult, they might be able to rationalize this, but to a child this may be very confusing why the parent does not look like the child. The majority of children reading this book is used to seeing children with relatives that look like them. If the author wants to make a statement of interracial relatives, why wasn't this done with child one and three?
Your kid won't get that confused. Trust me. If they do, they can ask you about it, and you can explain it to them. As for "why wasn't it done with the other families", well, maybe it has something to do with the fact that most families are not interracial.
I have 20 month old twins and one absolutley loves this book while the other one could care less. The illustrations are what bug me. I know I should judge the book on its outdated artwork, but when you have to stare at it all day long and read it over and over it gets to you! The dad wears flip flops and short shorts. If you're a stickler for proper grammar, you'll hate this book.
Well, that last sentence is certainly correct, though it seems like a bit of a non sequitur... *shrugs*
Having said that, the story is written in a style that reflects poor pronunciation and word usage ("dat" for "that"). I found myself having to substitute correct pronunciation and sentence structure for the actual words. Children at the age to whom the book is targeted may think the story as written reflects correct word usage -- they are very impressionable at two and three!
*stares*
*checks book*
Nope, it definitely says "that".
1) The first story shows a father throwing a baby in the air, and swinging him by his arms. Both these are terribly dangerous acts. Throwing a baby in the air can cause brain damage, and failing to catch him can cause severe injury or even death. Swinging a baby by his arms could dislocate the shoulders or cause other serious injury. This is not really safe for any age, but certainly VERY dangerous for a baby, whose body isn't that strong yet.
*headdesks*
You're not throwing your own kid! You can tell your own kid that this is dangerous. Gah! Honestly, am I missing something here?
I should do this more often. Maybe next time I'll brave the positive comments, huh?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-15 08:39 pm (UTC)I'm with you about not throwing away books, too. I'm not sure why, but respect for books is ingrained into me. I don't even like to make notes or highlight textbooks, though admittedly part of that is that I'm lazy.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-15 10:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-15 08:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-15 08:54 pm (UTC)Of course, you're also speaking concretely (I, personally, was scared by this book) instead of abstractly (I assume that kids would be scared by this book).
no subject
Date: 2005-01-15 09:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-15 10:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-15 10:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-15 11:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-16 12:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-16 12:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-16 11:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-15 08:39 pm (UTC)I'm with you about not throwing away books, too. I'm not sure why, but respect for books is ingrained into me. I don't even like to make notes or highlight textbooks, though admittedly part of that is that I'm lazy.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-15 10:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-15 08:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-15 08:54 pm (UTC)Of course, you're also speaking concretely (I, personally, was scared by this book) instead of abstractly (I assume that kids would be scared by this book).
no subject
Date: 2005-01-15 09:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-15 10:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-15 10:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-15 11:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-16 12:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-16 12:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-16 11:02 am (UTC)