George was kidnapped from the jungle and sold to a zoo

[8filltheheart]

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 content.  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.)

 

The OP referred to a K-3 list, not a preschoolers list.   Hunter referred to grammar stage and rhetoric stage.  While I do not believe in the ages/stages, the definition of those stages by neo-classical educators is K-4th/5th as grammar stage and 9th up as rhetorical.

 

Even so, my little ones are certainly familiar with most of those stories anyway as well as other stories which are far more gruesome and true (the crucifixion of Christ for one.)

[momto2Cs]

I guess that would also let out Beatrix Potter's stories (Mr. McGregor's scariness,references to spanking), as well as most fairy tales, and yes, most Bible stories!

 

My problem with this is that we are so eager to sanitize everything for younger kids. Yes, I agree that some things, especially in older stories, can be "disturbing", but if we simply avoid them, or re-write them, what do we learn from them? It is perfectly acceptable to have an in-depth conversation with your kids about why x, y or z is no longer acceptable. Small children are capable of understanding a lot more than many people give them credit for. If we aren't the ones sharing these stories with them, and having the discussions that can go alongside, who will? And what happens when they do find out that people thougt differently in the past?

 

I'm not advocating that we read them the original Grimms at the age of 4, or anything like that. I just think we underestimate children and what their capabilities as regards understanding are. I can understand wanting to shelter kids to some degree--I myself do that just by homeschooling--but I think there is the risk of being overzealous with making everything happy and shiny for the little ones.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I really liked how Charlotte Mason was against being overly didactic with young children in your literature choices.  I don't have a quote at hand.  Maybe later I'll try to find some.  

[katilac]

<snip> 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.

Well, let's not head too far in the other direction: the OP sharing her opinion with Mensa is hardly censorship or forcing her opinion upon others.

[SilverMoon]

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. 

 

 

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.

 

I completely agree with these posts. Though, my older, well-adjusted children all read Curious George as a first grade level book, and it's back on the school shelf for my fifth DC this fall, so take that with salt if needed. For what it's worth they're all conservation minded scouts and none of them think poaching is okay.

 

 

Kids intuitively know this world has evil and bad guys in it, before they ever meet Curious George and the man with the yellow hat. It's the simple fairy tale or children's storybook that shows them good triumphs, in a far less scarring or scary way *because* it's not realistic.

 

That quote often given to G.K. Chesterton came to my mind from the beginning of this thread. "Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed." The actual quote is, "Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon."

 

I heartily recommend reading the essays and comments on fairy tales C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien have written. Tolkien's essay is online for free (On Fairy Stories). The book Of Other Worlds has essays from Lewis, but you can find good parts and pieces online.

[Maus]

There is quite a good possibility that the book is on the Mensa list specifically because it brings up a moral issue on a child's level. Mensa is for the gifted. Gifted children often have an earlier, stronger moral sense than their age peers, but aren't necessarily any more mature. this creates a dilemma for their parents, because showing the child a documentary on poaching, as an example, isn't going to be age appropriate and will cause nightmares, but a gentle children's book will satisfy the gifted child's need for a moral debate.

[IsabelC]

My kids enjoyed Curious George, although we only read one volume once and they haven't requested it again.

For me, the ethical problem comes under the heading of Interesting Things to Discuss, rather than Things to Shield Kids From. It was an opportunity to talk about how the capture of wild animals for zoos (and private collections) used to be viewed as normal and fine, but nowadays we understand more about animals and this practice is not allowed anymore in Australia.

 

I respect your values and point of view, but on a practical level, if I avoided every book containing any information about practices, beliefs or attitudes I dislike, their reading list would be small to non existent!

[jljohn]

In light of this conversation, I found this New York Times 'interview' with the mother from the Cat in the Hat particularly interesting.  Imagine the "morals" we could draw from that story!  (Staying home alone; tearing the house apart is ok; allowing strangers into your home, etc.).  At any rate, this is really funny: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/the-mom-from-the-cat-in-the-hat-finally-speaks/

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

I was going to bring up Babar too. I just told the kids it went against our values and I wouldn't finish reading it. But in hindsight I wish I'd set it on fire and just paid the library fine.

 

Book burning, really!

Too much to say on this....I must walk away before I loose it.

[Melissa in Australia]

Book burning, really!

Too much to say on this....I must walk away before I loose it.

I thought the same thing. Imagine if everyone borrowed books from the library and burned them if they didn't like them :blink:  :ohmy:  :scared:  :willy_nilly:  they would soon have no books left

 

It reminded me a bit of that thread on the old WTM where someone had a library where someone was censoring the pictures in historical art with a black marker or something at their library.

[boscopup]

The OP referred to a K-3 list, not a preschoolers list.   Hunter referred to grammar stage and rhetoric stage.  While I do not believe in the ages/stages, the definition of those stages by neo-classical educators is K-4th/5th as grammar stage and 9th up as rhetorical.

 

Even so, my little ones are certainly familiar with most of those stories anyway as well as other stories which are far more gruesome and true (the crucifixion of Christ for one.)

 

Yep, and grammar stage doesn't mean the kids have no ability to think whatsoever. :tongue_smilie: Four year olds are often in the "why" stage (that stage has extended at least to 6.5 for my middle son... it's exhausting :) ), and they are thinking about things. I have discussions about moral issues with my kids all the time. How else would they know how to treat their brothers? Or our pets? Or anyone else we meet? A big part of these youngest years IS teaching right vs. wrong and calibrating their moral compass.

 

Btw, I'm reading through the Chronicals of Narnia series with my kids right now. It's a bit over my 4 year old's head, so he sometimes falls asleep while I read. My 6 year old really enjoys it.

[shanvan]

In light of this conversation, I found this New York Times 'interview' with the mother from the Cat in the Hat particularly interesting.  Imagine the "morals" we could draw from that story!  (Staying home alone; tearing the house apart is ok; allowing strangers into your home, etc.).  At any rate, this is really funny: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/the-mom-from-the-cat-in-the-hat-finally-speaks/

Well, my kids actually brought up all of these issues with The Cat in the Hat. We still enjoyed the book even though we laughed at the absurdity of them.

[*Michelle*]

That quote often given to G.K. Chesterton came to my mind from the beginning of this thread. "Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed." The actual quote is, "Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon."

 

Leave it to Chesterton, naturally, to put my vague philosophy into concrete form.  This is exactly why we read the old stories to our kids.  The villains may be frightening, but they're defeatable.

[Hunter]

Something a lot of gifted moms with gifted children need to remember is that "normal" children sometimes have different needs, than their gifted peers.

 

I raised one fairly "normal" child who went from being a late bloomer to a SOCIALLY precocious child with little interest in academics other than business. And a raised another child that was never properly tested but was at LEAST highly gifted with some atypical spectrum stuff going on.

 

My late bloomer was just not ready for poaching discussions at grammar stage. Not in the least. He could barely follow a STORY, never mind adding in PC issues.

 

My gifted child understood all too much, but he was so smart he knew enough to play stupid, so people would leave him alone and let him just be a kid. :lol:

 

There is no NEED to introduce the evils in life THROUGH literature to grammar stage students. What's the big rush? Gifted kids who are NOT at the grammar STAGE at ages 6-9 might need something else, but they also might not. There is a lifetime of evil waiting for them. Why rush into it?

[8filltheheart]

Something a lot of gifted moms with gifted children need to remember is that "normal" children sometimes have different needs, than their gifted peers.

 

I raised one fairly "normal" child who went from being a late bloomer to a SOCIALLY precocious child with little interest in academics other than business. And a raised another child that was never properly tested but was at LEAST highly gifted with some atypical spectrum stuff going on.

 

My late bloomer was just not ready for poaching discussions at grammar stage. Not in the least. He could barely follow a STORY, never mind adding in PC issues.

 

My gifted child understood all too much, but he was so smart he knew enough to play stupid, so people would leave him alone and let him just be a kid. :lol:

 

There is no NEED to introduce the evils in life THROUGH literature to grammar stage students. What's the big rush? Gifted kids who are NOT at the grammar STAGE at ages 6-9 might need something else, but they also might not. There is a lifetime of evil waiting for them. Why rush into it?

 

This is not an issue of gifted vs. not gifted.  That is a red-herring argument.

[boscopup]

I've taught non-gifted kids in Bible class. At ages 3-4, they were perfectly capable of discussing right vs wrong in the context of the Bible stories we were learning. Grammar stage kids aren't thoughtless beings that can only memorize facts, even the "average" iq ones. I wouldn't expect them to do deep literary analysis, but they can understand that in the story of the Good Samaritan, it wasn't nice of those people to pass by and not help the injured man, and the Samaritan was nice and did the right thing. I'm not talking about gifted kids here. Just age appropriate discussion.

[Haiku]

There is no NEED to introduce the evils in life THROUGH literature to grammar stage students.

If my kids had never read books that had some evil in them, they would have been bored indeed. Without evil, there's not a whole lot of conflict, and without conflict, there's not really a very good story. When my dd was 3 (maybe 4, but I think 3) I read her Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH. Talk about a story chock full of moral issues! She loved it and was wise enough at 3 to empathize with the rats and see the NIMH people as bad. We also read Curious George and never discussed poaching, but my dd did mention that TMWTYH brought George from Africa just like we brought her brother from his native land. What my dd took from the story is that a little monkey needed a family and TMWTYH stepped up. And my dd wants to go to Africa and work with orphaned cheetahs when she grows up, so I don't think she's in danger of becoming a poacher.

 

I agree with others about Chesterton: children know that evils exist even when you don't tell them specifically. I mean geez, I was afraid of the dark and of monsters under my bed before anyone ever told me about ghosts or other scary things that go bump in the night. I just knew they were there. I think that the grammar stage (or young child stage, or whatever) is the perfect time to start introducing the idea that evil can be dealt with.

 

Besides, I don't find Curious George to be a story about evil. I find it to be a story about a little monkey (who is, of course, not a monkey, which my dd also pointed out). Not every story that mentions something unfortunate is about that unfortunate thing.

 

Tara

[La Texican]

She probably brought up giftedness because the context is the book was from a Mensa reading list.

I must have totally misunderstood the stages, because I thought the grammer stage was to jntroduce the stories and tge charachters of the worlds major stories. I thought the next stage was to review the same stories with more details, context, and perspective, and that the final stage was to review the same stories but be able to draw comparisons and express opinions. I just asked my grammer stage kid to read an easy reader of Icarus today. It starts out with Daedus murdering his nephew (who knew?) out of jealousy for his talent. It ends with Daedus burrying his son after a tragic accident took his life. I thought that mythology was on the program for early learning alongside world history. Is it not?

[La Texican]

doesn't want to let me edit.

I meant mythology in grammer stage as part of the neo classical program, not as part of the mensa book list

[Jean in Newcastle]

Yes, mythology and folk tales etc. are in the grammar stage.  Curious George is actually on the very lowest end of grammar stage (or even pre-grammar if there is such a thing.)  It is introducing basic concepts related to relationships and cause and effect in a humorous way that appeals to young children.  

[mamajudy]

 We also read Curious George and never discussed poaching, but my dd did mention that TMWTYH brought George from Africa just like we brought her brother from his native land. What my dd took from the story is that a little monkey needed a family and TMWTYH stepped up. 

 

This is so sweet! Sometimes we need to look at things through a child's eyes instead of over-analyzing everything.

[Kathryn]

I have this book:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Journey-That-Saved-Curious-George/dp/0547417462/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373296306&sr=1-4&keywords=H.A.+rey

 

I have yet to read it, but maybe I need to now. I'll report back. :closedeyes:

I just read it and DS7 is reading it at this very moment. It's beautifully illustrated and a great true story.

[Jean in Newcastle]

 

You can (obviously) talk about it all day long but the Babars and original curious little monkeys will still be loathed by some people.

 

These are picture books.  They literally take seconds to flip through before you check them out of the library or buy them.  The "offensive" material about George was in the first few pages.  Hard to miss.  It is even harder to miss the pictures in Babar of him in a crown and the imperialistic language.  Now at 16, even though I flip through my ds' choices, I can miss possibly offensive language or content.  Fortunately I think he can make his own choices on those things at his age.  

[momto2Cs]

Yes, I'm ACTUALLY a book burning  book burner, who burns books. Real Talk.

 

WHY on earth would you BURN the books? Can't you donate them, or sell them, or something? Other people might like them even if you don't.

[mommymilkies]

IDK.  I have some serious issues with some picture books, but knowing the history of Curious George, I will still read it and explain it to my kids.  My kids are huge animal lovers, so the issue has come up with similar things in books.  Babar makes me cry, so I can't read that one, but they are free to.  I think of them as jumping off points for discussion IF it is just part of a book and not the entire theme.  For example, if CG was all about how awesome poaching is, we wouldn't read it.  I will admit I refuse to read any Gail Carson Levine, though.  Her Sleeping Beauty book called breastfeeding cannabalism and I refuse to touch anything of hers now. :p  I also don't like The Rainbow Fish because to me it's about how you need to change to fit into a mold so people will like you (or other fish).  So maybe I'm hypocritical. ;)

[tammyw]

I just read it and DS7 is reading it at this very moment. It's beautifully illustrated and a great true story.

 

We read this recently and loved it.

[mommymilkies]

On that same reading list is Bedtime for Frances. It was a really cute book right up until the point where the parents threatened to spank Frances. My son had no idea what that meant. I tried to explain and he was horrified.

 

With Curious George, he instantly commented about kidnapping George being a bad thing. He also pointed out that smoking was bad when we got to the part with the pipe. But those were things he already knew, so he put them aside and enjoyed the story. George's antics are what he remembers from the book. The one thing he remembers from Bedtime for Frances is that some parents hit their children. :glare:

 

Oh, I know.  I say it jokingly (like I'll hang you from your toes if you don't go to bed!) because we use a lot of verbal irony here.  But that did throw me off guard when I read it.  I know some people spank, but we don't, so my kids were really 0.o when I read that one aloud.  

 

I do not burn books. I have never burned a book. I would nver suffer a book be burnt in my presense.

 

It was a statement intended to convery humor. I thought that was excedingly clear, especially in the second post, which you quoted...However, I am willing to believe I am decidedly not funny and not a clear communicator. You are definitely not the first person to insinuate as much.

 

I really didn't mean to derail the thread geez.

I gotcha.  I am anti-book burning, but I admit there is one book I hate so much that I would burn it if I ever owned a copy again because it upset and disturbed me so badly that I was a wreck for weeks.  I did end up donating it when I had it, because some people like it, but since it was my property and I was that upset, I was one step away from doing so.

[momto2Cs]

I do not burn books. I have never burned a book. I would nver suffer a book be burnt in my presense.

 

It was a statement intended to convery humor. I thought that was excedingly clear, especially in the second post, which you quoted...However, I am willing to believe I am decidedly not funny and not a clear communicator. You are definitely not the first person to insinuate as much.

 

I really didn't mean to derail the thread geez.

 

Sorry about that. I did wonder AFTER I posted, of course, if you had meant it in a more humorous way. I apologize, and am relieved.

[Haiku]

I also don't like The Rainbow Fish because to me it's about how you need to change to fit into a mold so people will like you (or other fish).

I hate The Rainbow Fish, too, but my kids didn't see it the same way I did. Basically their takes was, "If you can do something to make your friends happy, you should." They didn't see it as sacrificing yourself in a negative way.

 

I hate The Giving Tree, too, and so do my kids. They see the tree as a victim. I also hate Love You Forever because it's just creepy.

 

Tara

[Rivka]

Oddly enough, my 4yo brought me the original Curious George for his bedtime story last night. His take: it's not fair that they put George in prison for accidentally calling the fire station, because George didn't know what he was doing. Also, he thinks the fire department shares culpability for the incident because they were dumb enough to have the number 123-4567.

 

He didn't weigh in on the poaching issue, but he's heard "wild animals belong in the wild" and "we can't take that home because of leave-no-trace" ad nauseam so I figure he knows my position.

[Terabith]

I'm torn on I Love You Forever.  On the one hand, it's sweet and I have a hard time reading it without crying.  On the other hand, it gets really, really creepy.  I've told my kids that I'll love them forever, but I refuse to do breaking and entering to forcibly cuddle them.......

[nmoira]

He's lucky he wasn't sold for medical experiments.

[Kathryn]

I'm torn on I Love You Forever. On the one hand, it's sweet and I have a hard time reading it without crying. On the other hand, it gets really, really creepy. I've told my kids that I'll love them forever, but I refuse to do breaking and entering to forcibly cuddle them.......

LOL. I was told how sweet that book was and am so glad I checked it out from the library before buying it, because it totally creeped me out.

[Word Nerd]

I'm torn on I Love You Forever.  On the one hand, it's sweet and I have a hard time reading it without crying.  On the other hand, it gets really, really creepy.  I've told my kids that I'll love them forever, but I refuse to do breaking and entering to forcibly cuddle them.......

I think it's funny and assumed the creepy stuff was tongue in cheek.

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

I've never burned a book, but I was tempted once or twice. The first when I was a teenager and I was just completely disturbed by a book I read (though now as an adult I've been considering re-reading it.) The second time was a Cat in the Hat learning library book that was so full of bad/wrong/misleading information that the idea of other children reading or being read that information and believing it to be true was very upsetting. I returned it and almost said something to the librarians about it; I also wanted to leave a note in the book for the next reader, but I never did. Instead I wrote a review of it on my blog and shared that review on Amazon.com and Goodreads so that I could warn other parents.

 

http://sceleratusclassicalacademy.blogspot.com/2012/10/kids-book-review-hooray-for-today-cat.html

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

I'm torn on I Love You Forever.  On the one hand, it's sweet and I have a hard time reading it without crying.  On the other hand, it gets really, really creepy.  I've told my kids that I'll love them forever, but I refuse to do breaking and entering to forcibly cuddle them.......

I didn't recognize the title until I read this. THEN I remembered because that creeped me out too and I thought that was completely inappropriate boundaries with an ADULT offspring.

[myfantasticfour]

My toddlers have all loved Curious George, and the non-PC stuff pretty much goes over their heads. The message that I don't love is that it's okay to do things that cause trouble, as long as you are reallllllly sorry and do something to make up for the trouble, because then everyone will forgive you and be happy with you. Like, the one where George goes to the animal shelter -- he lets all the puppies out, and they get lost, and when he finds the last one (that's only missing because HE let it out!), they give him a puppy to take home. How about some sort of teaching about how he really shouldn't mess with things that aren't his??

 

But alas, I still have some fondness for the curious little monkey, even if he is far more curious than any of my toddlers combined (and I've had at least one that rates awfully high on the curious scale). ;)

This is a problem I have with almost all children's programming (USA at least!) that I see for television: they operate on the idea that demonstrating what NOT to do, for most of the show, and then showing a few quick minutes of resolution at the end, teaches kids good ways. It doesn't. Spending the majority of viewing time, seeing antisocial or unethical or simply unkind behavior and actions, normalizes that. Seeing a last few minutes of consequences, resolution, and everyone walks away happy, doesn't change the immersion effect of spending most of their viewing time, seeing bullying, crassness, minor violence, callous treatment of others, etc. I find I like non-USA kids' shows much better.

 

This is about books, not screens, but the principle still applies. 

[*Michelle*]

This is a problem I have with almost all children's programming (USA at least!) that I see for television: they operate on the idea that demonstrating what NOT to do, for most of the show, and then showing a few quick minutes of resolution at the end, teaches kids good ways. It doesn't. Spending the majority of viewing time, seeing antisocial or unethical or simply unkind behavior and actions, normalizes that. Seeing a last few minutes of consequences, resolution, and everyone walks away happy, doesn't change the immersion effect of spending most of their viewing time, seeing bullying, crassness, minor violence, callous treatment of others, etc. I find I like non-USA kids' shows much better.

 

This is about books, not screens, but the principle still applies. 

 

Cough, cough, Arthur, cough.

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

This is a problem I have with almost all children's programming (USA at least!) that I see for television: they operate on the idea that demonstrating what NOT to do, for most of the show, and then showing a few quick minutes of resolution at the end, teaches kids good ways. It doesn't. Spending the majority of viewing time, seeing antisocial or unethical or simply unkind behavior and actions, normalizes that. Seeing a last few minutes of consequences, resolution, and everyone walks away happy, doesn't change the immersion effect of spending most of their viewing time, seeing bullying, crassness, minor violence, callous treatment of others, etc. I find I like non-USA kids' shows much better.

 

This is about books, not screens, but the principle still applies.

YES! EXACTLY!!!

[JumpyTheFrog]

I find I like non-USA kids' shows much better.

 

Wait, kids' shows in other countries aren't like this? Why do we have such garbage here?

[Walking-Iris]

In my house, George gets put in the zoo, Francis gets threatened with a spanking, Rainbow Fish gives away all his scales, Giving Tree gets chopped down, mothers climb through adult son's windows, nana upstairs dies, babar buys a suit, Chrysanthemum gets bullied, Horton is sold to a circus and Cinderella's step sisters cut off their toes and a host of other anti- politically correct nasty not-niceness. 

 

And I wouldn't change any of it. Not even a Mother Goose rhyme gets neutered here. 

 

I guess I'll start saving up for their therapy when they're older. 

[shawthorne44]

I appreciate the heads-up.  I never liked the book as a kid.  Maybe because the storyline made me uneasy?  I was a sensitive kid.  But, then I also hated that Purple Crayon book, and there seems to be nothing wrong with that. 

It was on my list to read in the near future, and I think I'll skip it.  If it had some redeeming feature, that made it worth a discussion , I'd probably still read it.  But, there are so many other good books out there. 

 

eta:  I think the part that bothers me the most is the theme of Cause havoc, apologize, be cute, everyone happy and get a reward.

[nmoira]

In my house, George gets put in the zoo, Francis gets threatened with a spanking, Rainbow Fish gives away all his scales, Giving Tree gets chopped down, mothers climb through adult son's windows, nana upstairs dies, babar buys a suit, Chrysanthemum gets bullied, Horton is sold to a circus and Cinderella's step sisters cut off their toes and a host of other anti- politically correct nasty not-niceness.

 

And I wouldn't change any of it. Not even a Mother Goose rhyme gets neutered here.

 

I guess I'll start saving up for their therapy when they're older.

We do most of those with the exception of the overtly moralizing ones - The Rainbow Fish and The Giving Tree - and Love You Forever because none of us like it. Heck, we've read books in which children actually do get spanked or worse (we are a no-spank family). My kids don't feel threatened, but we talk about it all, gently, and respect their questions and concerns.

[Melissa in Australia]

I do not burn books. I have never burned a book. I would nver suffer a book be burnt in my presense.

 

It was a statement intended to convery humor. I thought that was excedingly clear, especially in the second post, which you quoted...However, I am willing to believe I am decidedly not funny and not a clear communicator. You are definitely not the first person to insinuate as much.

 

I really didn't mean to derail the thread geez.

Sorry I really believed you and  had a image in my head of someone clearing the library shelves of all the books they didn't like and having a bonfire out the back.  I  guess I have no sense of humor and a too vivid imagination

[swellmomma]

We love "I'll love you forever"  We laugh about the creepiness factor, because really what mom no matter how big her kids get don't wish they would still be their baby.  So we say no mom will ever be that stalkerish even if they still think wistfully of those days of rocking a sleeping baby.  A friend read it during the funeral of her 2 children following a car crash as their final good night story, so I do have a hard time reading it though with out crying through it.

 

[HRAAB]

In my house, George gets put in the zoo, Francis gets threatened with a spanking, Rainbow Fish gives away all his scales, Giving Tree gets chopped down, mothers climb through adult son's windows, nana upstairs dies, babar buys a suit, Chrysanthemum gets bullied, Horton is sold to a circus and Cinderella's step sisters cut off their toes and a host of other anti- politically correct nasty not-niceness. 

 

And I wouldn't change any of it. Not even a Mother Goose rhyme gets neutered here. 

 

I guess I'll start saving up for their therapy when they're older.

No. Take the money and buy some more un-edited, anti-politically correct literature. My adult daughters have forgotten many of the things I did with them during school, but they have never forgotten any of those wonderful (full of evil and good) books we read together. My oldest is already collecting many of the books we read together to read to her daughter although she has a few years to wait.

[SilverMoon]

In my house, George gets put in the zoo, Francis gets threatened with a spanking, Rainbow Fish gives away all his scales, Giving Tree gets chopped down, mothers climb through adult son's windows, nana upstairs dies, babar buys a suit, Chrysanthemum gets bullied, Horton is sold to a circus and Cinderella's step sisters cut off their toes and a host of other anti- politically correct nasty not-niceness. 

 

And I wouldn't change any of it. Not even a Mother Goose rhyme gets neutered here. 

 

I guess I'll start saving up for their therapy when they're older. 

 

:wub:

[PachiSusan]

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.

 

 

 Yes, this!

[PachiSusan]

I guess that would also let out Beatrix Potter's stories (Mr. McGregor's scariness,references to spanking), as well as most fairy tales, and yes, most Bible stories!

 

My problem with this is that we are so eager to sanitize everything for younger kids. Yes, I agree that some things, especially in older stories, can be "disturbing", but if we simply avoid them, or re-write them, what do we learn from them? It is perfectly acceptable to have an in-depth conversation with your kids about why x, y or z is no longer acceptable. Small children are capable of understanding a lot more than many people give them credit for. If we aren't the ones sharing these stories with them, and having the discussions that can go alongside, who will? And what happens when they do find out that people thougt differently in the past?

 

I'm not advocating that we read them the original Grimms at the age of 4, or anything like that. I just think we underestimate children and what their capabilities as regards understanding are. I can understand wanting to shelter kids to some degree--I myself do that just by homeschooling--but I think there is the risk of being overzealous with making everything happy and shiny for the little ones.

 

I wish there was a like button here, especially the bolded. 

[PachiSusan]

I admit there is one book I hate so much that I would burn it if I ever owned a copy again because it upset and disturbed me so badly that I was a wreck for weeks.

 

Well now you HAVE to share what book that was!!!!