George was kidnapped from the jungle and sold to a zoo

[SarahW]

For the tv show, watch the 2006 Curious George movie first. It shows the man in the yellow hat as a museum worker who goes to the jungle to find an artifact. George befriends him there and later sneaks onto the ship without the man knowing. No poaching involved.

 

I agree with others that you likely won't scar your kid. The ones who notice will ask about it. Most won't notice, just as you obviously didn't when you were a kid. I did try to get newer CG books after reading the first old one though. The new ones were more in line with the tv show, and they were just plain more modern in attitudes (no smoking, etc.).

 

I mention the movie up in post 35. The Archaeology article I linked says everything that I think needs to be said about that.

 

I don't know about my kid, but I'm scarred for life.  :o

[SarahW]

So you're saying it's concerning that the OP didn't notice it as a child?

 

If a high school student didn't notice it, it would be more concerning, but a 6 year old?

 

Oh, I'm pretty sure I never read this book as a kid. So I have no idea what I would have picked up on from it.

 

I'm not sure what a 6yo would exactly get from it. But I don't think the book has any redeeming qualities. So I'd rather spend time reading something else. Life's too short, and young minds too impressionable, to waste on junk.

 

Hence why I'm still mad at Mensa.  <_<

[Farrar]

Oh, because it's from the Mensa lists?  Yeah, I got horribly hated on once for saying this on another forum, but I don't love that Mensa list.

[happypamama]

I once replaced "spanking" with "kissing". LOL

My version of "There Was an Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe" replaces "whipped" with "kissed." :) I say:

 

"There was an old woman who lived in a shoe,

She had so many children and knew just what to do.

She gave them some soup and some yummy brown bread,

And kissed them all soundly and tucked them in bed."

 

Much nicer, IMO. I never want my children to think they're a burden or that there are "too many" of them.

[jljohn]

 

I wouldn't read my kid a book about treating black people as less than human, no matter when it was written.

 

While I understand and agree that you wouldn't want to teach your child to think of any other person as less than human, do you think this carte blanche approach might be like throwing the baby out with the bath water?  How will you teach history or any form of literature (that isn't current)?  So much of American Literature reflects the racist attitudes of its social context.  When you bring in other objectionable issues like sexism, imperialism, and wanton disregard for creatures and natural resources, you won't have much left to pick from.  I think that part of providing an education is teaching your children where we (as a human species) once were, how we are different today, and why we changed.  Simply calling a once acceptable social norm morally wrong isn't good enough.  Without a good understanding of how we used to be and why we changed, we, as people, are likely to repeat histories mistakes.  Reading antebellum American Literature could be the best way for a young person to see, and be disgusted by, the racist attitudes that form the backdrop for the American Civil War, the Civil Rights movement, and even lingering race issues today.

[SarahW]

Oh, because it's from the Mensa lists?  Yeah, I got horribly hated on once for saying this on another forum, but I don't love that Mensa list.

 

Well, I've liked it so far. Sure, some (or, ahem, most) of the books are older. But they tended to have well-constructed plots and show a variety of storylines. Just didn't realize that one of those variety would be poaching.  :001_rolleyes:

 

Any other particular books in the K-3 list I should have a heads-up on? The older lists I feel I have a better handle on, but for early readers I'm pretty clueless. Hence, my use of the list.

 

 

 

I'm actually sick in bed today, so I've been amusing myself my reading other reactions to this book around the web. Just for kicks an giggles, my two favorites: http://www.saidkristin.com/2013/01/curious-george-character-assassination-carousel/  and http://babywhumpus.blogspot.com/2008/11/curious-george.html. 

 

ETA: I forgot the best one: http://trueslant.com/nickobourn/2010/01/23/werner-herzog-reads-curious-george/ - scroll down to the video. Priceless.

[Ravin]

Jljohn, that's true and I would agree for an upper middle or high schooler, but not for a 6yo.

[Ravin]

SarahW, you might try previewing books at the library before reading them to your DC or purchasing.

[SarahW]

While I understand and agree that you wouldn't want to teach your child to think of any other person as less than human, do you think this carte blanche approach might be like throwing the baby out with the bath water?  How will you teach history or any form of literature (that isn't current)?  So much of American Literature reflects the racist attitudes of its social context.  When you bring in other objectionable issues like sexism, imperialism, and wanton disregard for creatures and natural resources, you won't have much left to pick from.  I think that part of providing an education is teaching your children where we (as a human species) once were, how we are different today, and why we changed.  Simply calling a once acceptable social norm morally wrong isn't good enough.  Without a good understanding of how we used to be and why we changed, we, as people, are likely to repeat histories mistakes.  Reading antebellum American Literature could be the best way for a young person to see, and be disgusted by, the racist attitudes that form the backdrop for the American Civil War, the Civil Rights movement, and even lingering race issues today.

 

Uh-huh. My kid is six. I got the book out of the library based on a list of books for kindergarten to third graders. The list was presented as some suggestions for free-reading for that age group.

 

At six I feel I should be able to explain our family's thoughts on race in a few well-chosen sentences. We meet plenty of racists irl to give us the opportunity to do so. At six I don't need to read a book to him which glorifies racism for him to understand it.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Why is the American version so different? Did the publisher think a Teddy Roosevelt-esque character would be better for an American audience, and made the authors change the storyline? Something happened between the European and American rescension, and it's not for the better.

 

One of the Curious George books I got out from the library had some of the history of the series. I believe it said that after the success of "Cecily G and the Nine Monkeys," children kept writing to the authors to ask them to give George his own book. So if I am remembering correctly, it had nothing to do with the publishers. The authors were giving the customers what they wanted.

 

My kids love Curious George books (we've never seen the TV show). I get annoyed by the naiveté of the man. He never learns he can't trust George to stay out of trouble. I also agree with a previous poster who dislikes how George is always rewarded for fixing problems he alone caused. Plus, what kind of monkey doesn't have a tail?

[SarahW]

SarahW, you might try previewing books at the library before reading them to your DC or purchasing.

 

Oh, yes. I usually flip though the books first. But I didn't here because I just assumed that the book would be a lot like the TV show.

 

Of course, the one time I make that assumption is the one time it bites me in the butt.  :svengo:

 

 

PSA: Never assume anything about any book on the Early Reader shelf!  :smash:

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

Oh, because it's from the Mensa lists?  Yeah, I got horribly hated on once for saying this on another forum, but I don't love that Mensa list.

 

The Mensa list is great but not perfect. So are many other lists. They are a tool and nothing more. For someone like the OP to say they should tell Mensa to change a book because they personally did not like it seems wrong. There are many children books I think are odd and have no redeeming qualities and those will be different from everyone else....why should I expect my opinion to be the one Mensa uses?

Check out the banned book lists...it is surprising what some communities/schools/people have banned and the reasons they have done it.

[jljohn]

Uh-huh. My kid is six. I got the book out of the library based on a list of books for kindergarten to third graders. The list was presented as some suggestions for free-reading for that age group.

 

At six I feel I should be able to explain our family's thoughts on race in a few well-chosen sentences. We meet plenty of racists irl to give us the opportunity to do so. At six I don't need to read a book to him which glorifies racism for him to understand it.

 

Sarah,

 

I get it; I do, but I don't think that there is a line that a child crosses where they are, all-of-a-sudden ready to be exposed to bad things.  The process can be gradual.  My example was admittedly a teenage example, but I went there to show the problem with the approach.  A six year old version of my example might simply be pointing out that it was sad or wrong for George to be taken from his proper jungle home and family.  You could even take it so far as to point out to your child that all the havoc George wreaks is consequent from his being forced into a context where he doesn't belong, and even though he may be adored by people he meets, his home is in the jungle.  

 

I am not exactly a fan of Curious George, and I might not include it on any short list of recommended books, except that would be good to be familiar with a character that is so ubiquitous.  I do, however, question your approach to bad/immoral acts and attitudes in literature.  The inclusion of bad acts or attitudes in a story is not necessarily a glorification of those acts and attitudes, even when the story itself doesn't make it clear that they are bad.  Those acts are even sometimes essential to the story.

 

Jeremy

[Jean in Newcastle]

Curious George is an anthropomorphic "monkey" that isn't really a monkey or even an ape since I think that any animal that did exactly as George did would be the object of intense scientific scrutiny for being able to do these things with such intent.  The plot twist of how he came to live with the Man in the Yellow Hat is just that, a way to get them together.  My kids and I always focused on the love that the Man in the Yellow Hat and George have for each other, the grace the MWTYH had for George despite all his escapades, the toddler like curiosity George has and the sense of responsibility he has for trying to fix his mistakes which were never due to meanness but just curiosity.  It isn't supposed to be a realistic picture of animals, animal rights, or anything of that nature.  

[SarahW]

The Mensa list is great but not perfect. So are many other lists. They are a tool and nothing more. For someone like the OP to say they should tell Mensa to change a book because they personally did not like it seems wrong. There are many children books I think are odd and have no redeeming qualities and those will be different from everyone else....why should I expect my opinion to be the one Mensa uses?

Check out the banned book lists...it is surprising what some communities/schools/people have banned and the reasons they have done it.

 

 

Okay...this is hardly a case of me just not liking it. It is the fact that the message of the book is an illegal activity in most parts of the world.

 

 

Sarah,

 

I get it; I do, but I don't think that there is a line that a child crosses where they are, all-of-a-sudden ready to be exposed to bad things.  The process can be gradual.  My example was admittedly a teenage example, but I went there to show the problem with the approach.  A six year old version of my example might simply be pointing out that it was sad or wrong for George to be taken from his proper jungle home and family.  You could even take it so far as to point out to your child that all the havoc George wreaks is consequent from his being forced into a context where he doesn't belong, and even though he may be adored by people he meets, his home is in the jungle.  

 

I am not exactly a fan of Curious George, and I might not include it on any short list of recommended books, except that would be good to be familiar with a character that is so ubiquitous.  I do, however, question your approach to bad/immoral acts and attitudes in literature.  The inclusion of bad acts or attitudes in a story is not necessarily a glorification of those acts and attitudes, even when the story itself doesn't make it clear that they are bad.  Those acts are even sometimes essential to the story.

 

Jeremy

 

fwiw - Everyday I read a passage of Winter's Aesop's Fables to my kid, and then we discuss it thoroughly. I don't skip or gloss over anything. I don't think there is anything wrong with my approach.

[La Texican]

Hunter, what's the name of the childrens book you use to teach about human rights?

[SarahW]

Curious George is an anthropomorphic "monkey" that isn't really a monkey or even an ape since I think that any animal that did exactly as George did would be the object of intense scientific scrutiny for being able to do these things with such intent.  The plot twist of how he came to live with the Man in the Yellow Hat is just that, a way to get them together.  My kids and I always focused on the love that the Man in the Yellow Hat and George have for each other, the grace the MWTYH had for George despite all his escapades, the toddler like curiosity George has and the sense of responsibility he has for trying to fix his mistakes which were never due to meanness but just curiosity.  It isn't supposed to be a realistic picture of animals, animal rights, or anything of that nature.  

 

I am trying to say this as gently as possible but...if George isn't a primate (of whatever sort), then what is he? You do realize that the more you anthropomorphize him the worse the whole situation gets?

[Jean in Newcastle]

He's a fictional character.  He's a bit more than Arthur (who is a fictionalized anthropomorphic Aardvark) because he's still supposed to be an animal, but he isn't supposed to be a true-life primate.  If you want something that is non-fictionalized then you would probably like this book much better.  http://www.amazon.com/Kokos-Kitten-Reading-Rainbow-Book/dp/0590444255

[Word Nerd]

It's when they do NOT notice that is most concerning.

Would you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean.

[boscopup]

I don't know about my kid, but I'm scarred for life. :o

:lol:

 

CG didn't scar me, but I guess it is because it was so obviously unrealistic? Now The One and Only Ivan? That scarred me. It was based on a true story from the animal s' perspective. Is it bad that it scarred me? No. But it did leave me depressed. I had to pick a happy book after that. I'm sure that book completely negated any bad karma from reading one of the original CG books to my oldest when he was 3 or 4. :tongue_smilie: As I said, I didn't care for the original CG books, but I also don't think my kid will go out and poach because of it. He has two parents and 4 grandparents guiding his moral compass, all of which are against poaching. He knows that fiction books are not to be taken seriously. Just like when he watches LooneyTunes, he doesn't think it's ok to try to blow up someone or drop an anvil on someone, both of which are also clearly illegal and probably considered worse than poaching by most people. :)

[Hunter]

The human rights book I most often use is Stand Up for Your Rights.

 

Here are some videos that are more political than the declaration itself, but are an easy introduction.

 

It's more concerning when a child/student doesn't know something is even wrong. They are learning from their books what is right and what is wrong, just like they are learning from the people around them. They are absorbing the messages in the books. I didn't mean the CHILD is doing something wrong when she doesn't notice! What I meant is that the barely noticed, but absorbed, messages are dangerous, and more concerning in the long run, than those that upset the child.

 

We had a thread awhile back about sexism in literature, compared to racism, and why it can sometimes be so much worse. Most of the time children/students know that racism is wrong, but not always the sexism.

 

I tend to focus on human rights, because I think students learn better that HUMANS, all of them, deserve to be treated equally and fairly, NO MATTER WHAT. PERIOD!!!! And that included females, even if they are married and moms. That includes children, even if their parents have rights. That included people born with ambiguous genders. That includes disabled people. And of course that includes people of all races. That includes ALL people. I spend very little time defending a marginalized group other than to defend  it's place as being FULLY human in ALL ways.

 

It's just exhausting to worry about all this. I don't then say it's all right, though. But I do just give up, that students ARE going to be poisoned by their books. All people are victims, and all people are abusers at some point. And that is evident in literature. People hurt each other in so many ways. And at different times and places, some groups of people are hurt worse than others.

 

What is in many of these books--it's NOT okay. It isn't. I'm just one person though, and this problem is way bigger than me, and my ability to even make a dent in it. Giving up is not condoning or even accepting. It's just conserving my strength for even bigger problems.

[Farrar]

I feel frustrated that some people seem to think it's "just" a story.  Or that it's so absurd that it's not worth thinking about.  Surely on this forum of all places, one thing people would agree about is that the stories we tell matter and have meaning.

 

This particular book isn't one that brings out really strong feelings for me personally.  The moral it shows is really messed up.  But I was fine just putting it aside and letting my kids enjoy the preschool science of the PBS show and appreciate the Rays' other work, like their excellent constellation book.  However, it's always bizarre to me when people say "it's just a children's book" or something along those lines.

[jljohn]

I feel frustrated that some people seem to think it's "just" a story.  Or that it's so absurd that it's not worth thinking about.  Surely on this forum of all places, one thing people would agree about is that the stories we tell matter and have meaning.

 

This particular book isn't one that brings out really strong feelings for me personally.  The moral it shows is really messed up.  But I was fine just putting it aside and letting my kids enjoy the preschool science of the PBS show and appreciate the Rays' other work, like their excellent constellation book.  However, it's always bizarre to me when people say "it's just a children's book" or something along those lines.

 

Everyone here appears to object to the illegal harvesting or collecting of animals, and it is clear that the man with the yellow hat engages in what today would be illegal harvesting, but how does that event in the story translate to a "moral" of the story?  Those who are objecting to the first CG story seem to elevate the bad act to a level that the story never intended.  It's laughable that the Rey's ever intended, or that most readers would think, that the moral of the story is that it is ok to go take wildlife from the jungle and bring it home to the city.  It's merely a catalyzing event in the story.  The story requires interpretation.

[SarahW]

Everyone here appears to object to the illegal harvesting or collecting of animals, and it is clear that the man with the yellow hat engages in what today would be illegal harvesting, but how does that event in the story translate to a "moral" of the story?  Those who are objecting to the first CG story seem to elevate the bad act to a level that the story never intended.  It's laughable that the Rey's ever intended, or that most readers would think, that the moral of the story is that it is ok to go take wildlife from the jungle and bring it home to the city.  It's merely a catalyzing event in the story.  It seems to me, that objecting to CG on these grounds would be 'roughly' akin (very roughly) to objecting to the Joseph narrative in Genesis because teaches that it is ok to sell your brother into slavery and lie to your father.  The story requires interpretation.

 

Have you read the book?

 

The first link in post 58 gives images of most of the pages in the book. George being kidnapped out of the jungle and sold to a zoo IS the book.

 

There is no other story. There's nothing else in there to "interpret."

[mamajudy]

If you don't like the story, don't read it to your kids. It was written 70 years ago, for crying out loud. Times have changed. There are plenty of things that are considered morally right today that, 70 years ago, were considered downright evil. (I'm sorry for being cranky...I must be getting old.) Reading books that were written in the past helps us to understand history better. If we edit everything to reflect the present attitudes, we lose that understanding. Yes, as someone has already said, the term "thought police" comes to mind.

[Jean in Newcastle]

If you don't like the story, don't read it to your kids. 

 

This is what dd11 said when I told her about this thread!  It is just a story for preschoolers.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

Have you read the book?

 

The first link in post 58 gives images of most of the pages in the book. George being kidnapped out of the jungle and sold to a zoo IS the book.

 

There is no other story. There's nothing else in there to "interpret."

 

Well, no, you're not strictly correct.  You've given the bookends to the book - George being taken out of the jungle is what allows the story of a toddler-like creature that gets into mischief, to take place.  George being taken to the zoo is what brings it to a close.  The real meat of the book is the mischief that he got into in between those rather incidental events.  The authors wanted to have a story about basically a curious toddler or preschooler since that is really who the book is written for.  You can't have a human child be unintended and get into mischief like that, so they thought of the plot device of a toddler/preschooler- like "monkey" who is more like a human child of that age but with more agility than a real child.  I assumed that they ended with the zoo in that book because they didn't anticipate its popularity and thought of it as a stand alone book.  Mysteriously, in the other books he goes back to live with the Man in the Yellow Hat with no explanation.  

[Karen in CO]

 

Poaching is Wrong. George is not a monkey: he doesn't have a tail. The man with the yellow hat loves George. George is a sweet reflection of a mischievous child. The story was written a long time ago and reflects a different society that wrongly thought it was okay to take wild animals into captivity. All of those facts are true making the book a great book for discussions with your child. Exactly what kind of books do you expect from the Mensa list? I would expect books that give me an opportunity to talk to my kids, books that inspire my kids, books that challenge my kids.

 

There are a lot great book lists that are full of sweet, age-appropriate books that entertain children in different ways.

[Terabith]

Have you read The Giving Tree yet? That book really makes me uncomfortable!

 

I thought I was the only one!  The Runaway Bunny also bothers me, especially the part where she turns into the wind and "blow you where I want you to go."

[Terabith]

To be fair, in terms of Curious George, I read those books when they were younger than six (ages 3-4).  I was very bothered by the first one, but I remembered loving the books as a child, and so I read them with my children, and my older one really liked them, although I don't recall reading the first one more than once or twice.  I do remember commenting to them on how horrible that part was and a quick comment on how in those days people didn't know how bad it was.   My kids really liked Curious George Goes to the Hospital, and the one where he makes a mess in the neighbor's house and cleans it with soap powder and bubbles come out.  Can't remember the title.  She also liked the one where he went up into space.  I was far more okay with the other books that don't really talk about where he comes from and focus on the relationships involved.  I do NOT like contemporary versions of books.  They just rub me the wrong way, even more than discussing problematic parts of the original, albeit in very simple, brief ways with very young children. 

 

The Frances books (Bedtime for Frances, Bread and Jam for Frances, Birthday for Frances, etc) I think are some of the most wonderful easy books ever written, spanking or not.  Their wonderfulness more than makes up for the brief spanking mention. 

[Word Nerd]

Surely on this forum of all places, one thing people would agree about is that the stories we tell matter and have meaning.

I doubt anyone here would disagree. But the first CG book is "just" one story out of many about him, and I think it's an overreaction to give the beginning of his story more significance than is warranted or was intended by the Reys. The Curious George books are mostly silly stories that have been amusing kids for generations. I still don't really get why the OP didn't take advantage of a teachable moment and share her views on the subject in an age-appropriate way while they were reading the book. I would think most on this forum would also agree that's a good way to handle it when kids' books have messages or plot points we disagree with.

[Kathryn]

I read it to my boys last night to see what they thought. I asked DS7 how George came to live with the man with the yellow hat. He said the man captured George and took him away. I asked if that made George happy or sad. He said sad. I asked why George got in so much trouble. He said because he wasn't used to the city and that's not where he was supposed to be. I asked if he was a monkey, if he'd rather live in a zoo or the jungle. He said jungle. I asked if it was nice to take animals away from their homes. He said no.

 

DS3 was able to tell me that George was sad to leave the jungle and that he wouldn't want to live in a zoo either (he didn't understand the question about why George got in trouble).

 

Neither of my boys took away from it that taking animals from their natural habitats was a good thing. It's not something we've ever discussed so I don't think they were filtering what we read through what they'd been taught.

[Farrar]

I doubt anyone here would disagree. But the first CG book is "just" one story out of many about him, and I think it's an overreaction to give the beginning of his story more significance than is warranted or was intended by the Reys. The Curious George books are mostly silly stories that have been amusing kids for generations. I still don't really get why the OP didn't take advantage of a teachable moment and share her views on the subject in an age-appropriate way while they were reading the book. I would think most on this forum would also agree that's a good way to handle it when kids' books have messages or plot points we disagree with.

 

I don't think the Reys ever foresaw that George would become the huge industry he has today.  It was originally just one story they wrote.  I agree that the OP should have just used it as a teachable moment and then put the book aside - that's certainly what I did.  But I think there is a reluctance of a lot of people to look at messages and symbolism in picture books sometimes.  The overwhelming message isn't "this was the pilot episode and we got the exposition out of the way" in this book.  I don't know how one can argue that (and again, I had zero issue letting my kids enjoy the current incarnations as if that were the case, but I think you can't really argue that's the point of the book when it was originally a single book, not a big licensed character development project).

 

I know children's stories can often be absurdist from an adult perspective, but there's often a lot of interesting messages and symbolism going on in picture books.  Most people wouldn't question that there are deeper messages about dealing with darkness, about self-reliance, about the untrustworthiness of adults, about ideal romance, and various other things in fairy tales.  These picture books are often the stories we tell and retell our kids.  What are the messages we send with them and how to kids absorb those messages?  When kids read Where the Wild Things Are, do they take in that message about the dark part of themselves?  When they hear Mike Mulligan do they see the message about repurposing and being of use?  Or are these just silly stories - do we dismiss them because it's impossible to take a trip with monsters or because steam shovels don't have personalities?   And it's interesting what books resonate with each generation.  Why did the strangely pacifist The Story of Ferdinand so resonate with a generation of adults who were about to fight WWII?  Why did The Rainbow Fish with its conflicted message about individuality become such a big bestseller in the 90's?

 

I guess I just see that there is a message there.  The Reys, like everyone else of their generation, probably felt a sense of entitlement about animals and had a complete lack of understanding about the damage that was being done to animals in zoos at the time and in the wild.  They weren't trying to make a malicious book, but in a modern context, it does feel wrong - which is obviously why it was rewritten in the first place.  After all, the characters have become big licensed characters that generate lots of money and having a story with a message that's so uncomfortable and offensive by modern sensibilities damages the brand.

[MommaOfalotta]

I'm all for monitoring what kids read or have read to them depending on their age or mental/emotional maturity.. I also totally agree that there are plenty of books with symbolism/themes/language/whatever that need to be discussed with our kids...

 

this is not one of those books. Its Curious George!? :001_huh:

 

I find it pretty hard to get offended by childrens books.

 

I'm much more irked at the shows/stories that have whiny, bratty, spoiled kids in them that disrespect their parents on every other page.

[Word Nerd]

We used Five in a Row with both of my girls, and I'm definitely not arguing that picture books have no meaning.

[TraceyS/FL]

I guess I just see that there is a message there.  The Reys, like everyone else of their generation, probably felt a sense of entitlement about animals and had a complete lack of understanding about the damage that was being done to animals in zoos at the time and in the wild.  They weren't trying to make a malicious book, but in a modern context, it does feel wrong - which is obviously why it was rewritten in the first place.  After all, the characters have become big licensed characters that generate lots of money and having a story with a message that's so uncomfortable and offensive by modern sensibilities damages the brand.

But I'm not so sure that they did think that way given what Kathryn posted about the prior book that introduced George dealing with deforestation. I can't believe this was a popular "hot topic" back then, and not one you would write about in a children's book. Which leads me to thinking the other side of the fence - they were trying to get someones attention, or make the kids question as to why this was ok.

 

I'll have to figure out how/when to dig into it more, if possible.

[Jean in Newcastle]

If you want to read a book against hunting (and by extension, poaching), read the unabridged Bambi.  That was a book with an agenda that was watered down once Disney got a hold of it.  

[briansmama]

 

Poaching is Wrong. George is not a monkey: he doesn't have a tail. The man with the yellow hat loves George. George is a sweet reflection of a mischievous child. The story was written a long time ago and reflects a different society that wrongly thought it was okay to take wild animals into captivity. All of those facts are true making the book a great book for discussions with your child. Exactly what kind of books do you expect from the Mensa list? I would expect books that give me an opportunity to talk to my kids, books that inspire my kids, books that challenge my kids.

 

There are a lot great book lists that are full of sweet, age-appropriate books that entertain children in different ways.[/

 

I agree. My friend and I were just discussing how in one of the Little House on the Prarie books it's mentioned that the boys and girls had separate recess during school because it wasn't accepted fr the children to all play together. Our dc found this odd and we had to explain how things were different for boys and girls back then. It was an interesting point that reminded me of this thread.

[Rivka]

I feel compelled to post this link because of its Curious George content:

 

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/the-mom-from-the-cat-in-the-hat-finally-speaks/

[Word Nerd]

I thought this was interesting:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/24513/quick-10-curious-george-gets-flossy

 

"5. If the Reys hadn't been quick thinkers, Curious George may have never been. They fled Paris, France, on homemade bicycles just hours before Hitler's army invaded during WWII. As you can imagine, fleeing on two wheels doesn't really leave much room for luggage. But the Reys decided they definitely wanted to bring several in-the-works manuscripts with them and managed to pack five in their meager belongings. One of them was the first Curious George book. It makes George's love of his bicycle a little more poignant, doesn't it?"

[Violet Crown]

I feel frustrated that some people seem to think it's "just" a story. Or that it's so absurd that it's not worth thinking about. Surely on this forum of all places, one thing people would agree about is that the stories we tell matter and have meaning.

.

Well, I was the one who used the word "absurd," but I'm pretty sure I didn't follow that with "thus not worth thinking about." I think Jarry, Beckett, Ionesco and Lautréamont are absurd or bizarre, and I enjoy reading them and thinking about them.

 

I was just offering my approach to reading Curious George, and why that approach lets me read it aloud to children with a clear conscience and without pausing to explain why poaching is wrong. I'm sorry to have caused you frustration.

 

I don't explain to children that Punch shouldn't throw the baby out the window, or beat his wife Judy, either. It would just be a category error.

[chepyl]

We have read all of the Curious George books. My daughter Is 5 and is done with them now. She loves to watch animals, follow them, see what they do. She did not gain a desire to poach animals from reading the books. She was thrilled to release her butterflies after metamorphosis. She watched them float off into the garden.

 

I think there comes a point when you can analyze a story to much. I love to read books with deeper meaning, I don't think this one is encouraging poaching.

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

It has been a while since I read the book but (as far as I can remember) CG was alone when he was found, no parents. Maybe instead of thinking about poaching and dwelling on badness, maybe the Man with the Yellow Hat saved a baby monkey from death since he had no parents. Instead of forcing your children to come to a negative conclusion let them know it was a good thing for George otherwise he would have died.

 

[La Texican]

The one that bothered me enough that I almost skipped the sentence was in Curious George Gets a Medal, when they said George was so embarrassed he wished he could die. My kid was young enough to wrestle with the concept that people have to die eventually. I didn't like the words that told him anyone would ever wish to die. I read it, then forgot it. It was a library book. My kid could already read. I bought a package of classic picture books when weekly reader offered a good deal. It included Mike Mulligan, Goodnight Moon, a few other classics, and the Curious George with the innappropriately worded "die of embarrasement" phrase. It's floating around the house with all the other kid books. I also signed up for an email service, similar to bedtime math, but for American English Idioms. I've been telling those to the kids a little bit. (Hold your horses, a green thumb, etc..)

 

I know, a poorly phrased idiom is not identical to your complaint, but you also said you wantedto warn parents of questionable content in the original Curious George books; this was also questionable content in that series.

[justamouse]

So, if you decide that Curious George is off the list because of this, what else are you going to scrub off the list because Something Wrong has been done? I mean, you're just starting in kid's books, so you've got a LONG way to go, and many classic books where *many* wrong things are done? So, what else must go? 

 

We are supposed to *learn* from literature. When we come up against a worldview we don't espouse, that is a teaching point. 

If you take everything out of literature that is objectionable, what are you left with? 

 

IMHO, literature is the *correct* place to come up against differing opinions and worldviews. It is the correct place to reason out right and wrong.

 

THAT is why people are saying yours is a PC response.  

[Hunter]

So, if you decide that Curious George is off the list because of this, what else are you going to scrub off the list because Something Wrong has been done? I mean, you're just starting in kid's books, so you've got a LONG way to go, and many classic books where *many* wrong things are done? So, what else must go? 

 

We are supposed to *learn* from literature. When we come up against a worldview we don't espouse, that is a teaching point. 

 

If you take everything out of literature that is objectionable, what are you left with? 

 

IMHO, literature is the *correct* place to come up against differing opinions and worldviews. It is the correct place to reason out right and wrong.

 

THAT is why people are saying yours is a PC response.  

 

This is a perfectly acceptable attitude for rhetoric students, but not grammar level. Everything is new to them. They need to study concrete ideas and they need to feel safe. They are not automatically ready for rhetoric skills just because the world is such a crappy place.

[swellmomma]

We have no problem with reading curious george and even my 5 year old knows about ethical treatment of animals, what poaching is and why it is wrong, wildlife management/conservation etc, it is just the way things are here in our family. Like many beliefs/morals etc in our family it is taught from the beginning starting with gentle treatment of our pets, to leaving wildlife where wildlife belongs, ethical farming and the list goes on. If you are raising them to respect that, and to know poaching is wrong etc then even a story about a mischeivious monkey won't change that. So 6 is really not too young to be discussing that stuff. It can be discussed in an age appropriate manner for sure. If it makes you uncomfortable to read it then don't read it to your son, but you don't contact Mensa to change a book because you feel it is wrong to include it based on your own idea of what the correct moral stance is. THAT is censorship I have a problem with. Choosing not to have that book in your home is your choice, just like I refused to ever let the kids watch Barney when they were small, but trying to force that onto others is wrong.

[justamouse]

This is a perfectly acceptable attitude for rhetoric students, but not grammar level. Everything is new to them. They need to study concrete ideas and they need to feel safe. They are not automatically ready for rhetoric skills just because the world is such a crappy place.

 

I start my children with Grimm where it's really easy to see that the mother in Hansel and Gretel is awful and gets what she deserves. Where DD can say, "That mother is mean," and you can respond, "You're right, she is."

 

Literature is where you explore these things and still feel safe. You're at home, on the couch and learn to make those judgements. 

[8filltheheart]

This is a perfectly acceptable attitude for rhetoric students, but not grammar level. Everything is new to them. They need to study concrete ideas and they need to feel safe. They are not automatically ready for rhetoric skills just because the world is such a crappy place.

 

Then children shouldn't be exposed to stories like Princess and the Goblin, Heidi, The Secret Garden, The Little Princess, the Chronicles of Narnia.......the list would never end.    None of those stories have themes of safety.    And all of them are most definitely aimed at children.

[Terabith]

Then children shouldn't be exposed to stories like Princess and the Goblin, Heidi, The Secret Garden, The Little Princess, the Chronicles of Narnia.......the list would never end.    None of those stories have themes of safety.    And all of them are most definitely aimed at children.

 

And honestly, I wouldn't recommend ANY of those books for children in this age range (under age 7).  These titles, as well as fairy tales, are wonderful, important, essential books for kids in that 7-14 range, but none of them are for preschoolers.  They don't promote that sense of wholeness and safety that are so vital at that age.  Curious George, even with its many moral failings, actually does promote that sense.  The man with the yellow hat loves George and takes care of him, even when he is very naughty.  I laughingly say that we don't "do plot" until my kids are about seven.  That's not really true, but I DO avoid books and tv/ movies in which there is real narrative conflict.  It's just too emotionally intense.  Maybe my kids are overly sensitive, but I think there is a sense in which we ask children to internalize a lot of stuff that they just truly are not ready for when they are tiny.  (And I read a LOT to my kids as preschoolers.  I was just very careful.)

 

Edited because I mean conflict, not content!