Christina asked me to expand on our thought process behind selecting books for our kids right now–almost 4 and almost 2. Here are some things we do:
What Do We Look For?
We still ask, Does this accurately represent God’s creation? and Is this a work of literary and artistic excellence? For picture books, the “moral” question is usually pretty broad–where we often see trouble is if parents are portrayed in an unflattering light. As we evaluate the second question, we look at how it fulfills Lewis’ description of good literature: “descriptions that really describe, dialogue that can produce some illusion, characters one can distinctly imagine.” There’s a lot of room for personal taste here–Anna shared that she can’t stand Madeline, while I love the way the pictures evoke Paris for me. I personally can’t stand The Runaway Bunny, though it’s as much of a classic as Goodnight Moon! And while I love the text of the Jesus Storybook Bible, I don’t care for the style of the illustrations. I tried to make this point with Derek’s and my taste in adult literature, too–there is plenty of literature in the morally-good-aesthetically-good camp, and the beauty is that we can select from within that category to find the books that most appeal to us. For us, hand-drawn or painted illustrations are more satisfying (Tommy can stare at a page in a Tasha Tudor book for 10 minutes at a time); seldom do computer-generated pictures hold our interest. By and large, books based on or inspired by licensed characters or movies lack the detail and illusion we’re looking for. Since we want our children to LOVE reading, we want to present them with the most engaging picture books from the very beginning!
Here are some examples of books we’ve had to think about. The Berenstain Bears books were wildly popular in my childhood, but in almost every one, Papa Bear is stupid, lazy, or foolish, and Mama Bear is always right. This conveys a message about the role of parents that we don’t want to communicate to our children, so we would put them in the “morally bad” category of children’s books. In Cars and Trucks and Things that Go, Pa Pig skips the sunblock and gets a nasty sunburn that makes him crabby for several pages. This, however, is a small incident in a book that’s jam-packed with many other details. (In other parts of the book, Pa shows his ability to change tires, put on snow chains, pick out awesome presents, and other things that portray him as capable and caring.) We don’t think Tommy has ever come away from reading the book thinking, “Daddies are always dumb,” so we read this one. (A lot.) In Curious George, “curious” seems to mean “naughty”. Should we celebrate that? We’ve decided that in the original 6 or so H.A. Rey books, George has unpleasant consequences stemming from his disobedience to the Man in the Yellow Hat. He realizes that his “curious” behavior was wrong and repents of his actions. And then he usually has a chance to redeem himself after this realization. In the newer books “based on” the character, this full process doesn’t usually occur. So we have decided to read the original ones but tend to skip the newer ones (which often are computer-generated pictures, anyway). I mentioned before that Tommy loves trains and cars–so in waiting rooms and such, he gravitates towards Lightning McQueen and Thomas the Tank Engine licensed books. While these are usually morally fine, I find their quality lacking, so I try to direct him towards other, high quality books with real plots and better illustrations that are going to engage his mind and imagination. In all of these cases, I want to emphasize that I don’t judge parents who come down differently than us. Those are just decisions we’ve made for our family.
How Do We Find Good Books?
Children’s literature IS a hobby of ours, so many of our dates involve wandering around the children’s section of a bookstore or library, finding new titles or sharing old favorites. We regularly investigate the libraries of our friends and love getting suggestions from them in person (or via blog posts!). I talk to veteran homeschooling moms about their families’ favorite books and love reading and marking up homeschool book catalogues (Veritas Press, Sonlight, and Bethlehem Books are my favorites). I try to keep up on new releases by checking out The Horn Book at the public library, and we keep tabs on books honored by the Caldecott and Newbery awards each year because they recognize books of literary and aesthetic excellence (we do have to be discerning about the moral aspect). I think I’ve mentioned my favorite books about books before: Books Children Love and The Book Tree. (I’ve also had Honey for a Child’s Heart and Read for the Heart recommended to me by people I trust; I just haven’t gotten my hands on them yet!)
How We Handle Our Standards Conflicting With Others
I want to be careful not to convey to Tommy and Elizabeth a judgemental spirit about books, but I do want them to learn to form good judgments for themselves. When we’re in a situation with what I’d consider junk, I don’t criticize it, but rather search for good alternatives. If we were at a friend’s house or library where someone offered Tommy something that I morally object to (like the Berenstain Bears), I’d try to change the subject and look for an alternative. If it was just mediocre art, I’d let it go for the sake of being polite, but I wouldn’t let Tommy borrow it.
We try to be really explicit about books we’d like so our friends and family can buy our kids books that we’ll keep around. We started an amazon wishlist for Tommy as soon as I had a positive pregnancy test, and we add to it constantly. Our goal is to own only books that we find morally and aesthetically excellent, so if someone gives us a morally unacceptable book (which I actually think has not yet happened), we will dispose of it right away. If it’s just dumb or poorly-done (this kind of gift happens occasionally), we might keep it around for a couple weeks before getting rid of it, because it’s not dangerous, just a waste of time. In general, we find that such books don’t hold the kids’ interest for long, anyway.
Tomorrow I’ll post a list of 100 of our favorite picture books that we find morally and aesthetically excellent!
Ah… I LOVE Runaway Bunny! And I really like the illustrations in the Jesus Storybook Bible. 🙂 We can still be friends, and I am glad for that!
Looking forward to your list!!
Curious…have you seen the new “Christian” Berenstein Bear books? I saw them at Family Bookstore and bought one for Aidan called The Joy of Christmas. I agree that in the Berenstein Bear books from my childhood, Papa Bear was lazy, disinterested, and stupid (Too Much Junk Food comes to mind). This “new” series doesn’t cast Papa Bear in that light, and they each teach a character lesson. Liam’s most favorite book is Goodnight Moon and “Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?” as well as “Polar Bear, Polar Bear, What Do You Hear?” Aidan still loves them!
Kristen, yes, let’s still be friends, okay? =) hahaha
Leslie, haven’t seen those! I had totally forgotten about the series altogether until I was at the library and some other parent was reading one of the old ones to their kid and I flipped through it after they got up–definitely one that I would keep away from Tommy, as Papa was the bonehead as usual! I don’t know that they’re that popular anymore, anyway, but our library apparently still has some of the old school ones… =)
I’m glad you posted this. Honestly, I had this genre of books in my head (b/c this is what we’re reading around here) when you initially started your philosophy series, and I was pretty perplexed how you were judging these books “morally neutral” category. In time I figured out that you were mostly addressing books for older ages and it made much more sense. 🙂
Childrens books are a passion of mine too. I love beauty, I love wonder, and I love a good story. Jan Brett is probably my favorite author that I did not have as a child, but I’m so happy that my children have. You forget until you are having kids and in the thick of it how much energy this “editing for excellence” process takes. I agree exactly with your sentiments on Curious George and Berenstein Bears. With George and others I have found it difficult to take some of the franchise and edit the rest. That is what we do, but it definitely takes energy. You know how much I love Bill Peet, but half of his stuff doesn’t make it into the house. Fancy Nancy, for example, is delightful and Geneva loves it, as is Fancy Nancy and the Posh Puppy. However we don’t read Fancy Nancy: Bonjour Butterfly, where Nancy has to miss her friend’s birthday party to go to her Grandparents anniversary party and her parents allow her to maintain a bad attitude for 3 or 4 days!! Um, pass. But that’s frustrating for Geneva, esp at the library when she finds another book with a character she likes and we can’t get it, which is the case in almost every franchise. Ah well. ‘How to choose wisely’ is a good lesson for her to learn.
Since you brought up parenting in books, I’m curious with your impressions of the ‘less present’ mothers in older books. In Nurse Nancy, Mother is literally not at home for the entire morning. In Flicka Ricka and Dicka Pick Blueberries, Mother just sends them out into the woods for the entire day by themselves (and they get miserably lost). Even in blueberries for Sal, Mother doesn’t even know that her child is missing for what seems to be the better part of the afternoon. These are just of the top of my head examples, and I love each of these books, but this aspect of them and others written around the 40-60s really bothers me. Were children really left on their own that much?? I wish I could get my mom’s impressions on this – she grew up on a farm in TN in the 50s and would know this culture. Do you have any thoughts on this?
Christina,
You’re so right about the hard work that it takes to pick and choose. I love some Dr Seuss (One Fish, Two Fish) but have big problems with others. When we’re at the library, he’s not interested yet in visiting the stacks without me, so I tend to take him towards authors whose work I know I completely approve of (McCloskey, Richard Scarrey, Virginia Lee Burton). We are a bit different than some families in that we have a LOT of books in the home–definitely over 100 picture books–so most of what the kids request to read is stuff that we’ve approved and brought in. Obviously we can control what enters our home a lot easier than if we were at a school or public library. So when we go to the library, it’s honestly more to play with their cool “imaginative play” toys than to check out many books in a given trip! So it sounds like we haven’t run into as much of the “bad egg in the franchise” trouble as you guys have already, though it is an issue with George. I know it’s just a matter of time, and I distinctly remember having my mom check our stacks of books (I think we could take out 10 at a time) before we left the library, and if she nixed one, we had to put it back. I don’t remember being traumatized because she did such a great job of providing us with so many other great things to read that I didn’t miss the rejects. Hopefully I’ll be able to do the same with my kiddos when the time comes.
I think part of the wonder of children’s books is that often, kids are required to solve problems on their own. That’s not bad in my view as long as the parental figures are portrayed appropriately overall–loving, providing, kids respect them, etc. I think you’re totally right that in the 50s, parents left their kids on their own all the time–sure sounds like my mom ran free everywhere on the neighbor’s farms, doing things that totally should have killed her many times over! Even in my own childhood, we spent our summers running all over the dead end street where we lived, in any of the neighbor kids’ yards, playing for hours on end without my mom overseeing us. We knew our limits, and she knew our neighbors, so we were adequately safe (safer than my mom as a kid, I’d say). I would never let my kids wander all over the neighborhood like they do in Danny and the Dinosaur, but that’s because I’m new in town and don’t know my neighborhood very well and because my kids are 3 and 1. I do let my kids wander all over the (unfenced) backyard and house without my direct supervision (probably for 30 minutes at a time at this stage), though I sometimes pay for that with extra messes! I see a tendency in myself and my peers to physically watch over my kids more closely than our parents did, and I think that it’s appropriate in new and strange places and obviously while they’re still young like now, but once I recognize everyone at the playground and know the kids aren’t going to fall off the equipment anymore, I probably need to step back a few paces away from the kids, sit on a bench with another mom, and let them play on their own! What do you think–you guys have done a fair bit of moving, too–how comfortable do you feel with that physical separation issue at this stage, not being in the same neighborhood you grew up in as was the case in a lot of these 50s books? As an only child, do you think your mom had more of a chance to watch over you directly while you were playing than if she’d had younger kids around clammoring for her attention? I guess what I’m thinking is that it’s good and healthy for kids to be on their own within reason–more so at age 6 or 8 than age 3, obviously–so I guess I’m not bothered if I see it in books, within reason.
So regarding the books you’re mentioning, in Nurse Nancy, which Elizabeth is obsessed with right now, Mother isn’t present while they’re playing, but she is there to serve them a yummy lunch and listen to their adventures, right? Since they’re safe in their own home and own front yard while they play, I’m fine with her not being part of the action. I just imagine that she’s in the background, probably vacuuming the living room in pearls. I kindof like that she lets Nancy tend to her brother’s cut–if it were really serious, Nancy couldn’t handle it and Mother would need to take over, but I think it’s cute as is. At the ages in that book (5/6/7/8?), I would totally let my kids do all that. I haven’t read the Flicka Ricka one, but if the mother is negligent, I think that’s definitely a problem! (I think I have the same uneasy feelings about Hansel and Gretel at this stage.) In all the Ezra Jack Keats books, Peter and his friends wander around their New York City neighborhood and even run into bullies in Goggles!. So that is definitely a case of another place, another time…I would never ever let my kids of any age just wander around the streets of New York City! But I love how Peter’s mom plays along with him and encourages his imagination and such. I think his parents are portrayed really sweetly in those books, which is part of the reason they’re Muller family favorites! I guess what you’re saying and I’m agreeing with is that there’s a fine line between letting a kid explore and be a kid and making sure that in this sick day and age, our kids are completely safe. Basically, is Tommy or Geneva going to come away from a book thinking the message is that parents can’t be trusted to protect their kids? At this age, we don’t want that. Down the line, we can read about more complexities (war, poverty, death, etc can prevent parents from caring for their children), but I think that comes in more when you get to chapter books. We do read Boxcar Children to Tommy and love them, but in the first one, the Moores secretly watch over the Aldens and come help them when Violet gets ill (moral of the story–four young children can’t take care of themselves forever without loving parental figures), and in the following ones, Grandfather always lets the kids have their own adventure–with a trustworthy adult in the background to make sure that they’re safe and cared for.
I think even in McCloskey, you see the difference based on the age of the child and the situation. In Make Way For Ducklings, Mrs. Mallard keeps a close eye on her children because they are babies and in a busy city. In Blueberries For Sal, Sal (a bit older) and her mother are alone on a hill with no other people and Sal’s mom thinks she hears Sal behind her and comes looking for her immediately when she realizes she doesn’t know where she is. Same for Little Bear’s mother. So I think the message that is conveyed to my kids is that mommys will always come looking for you if you get separated.
This may be WAY overanalyzing what you were asking about, but Derek’s working late tonight, so I just let myself pretend we were sitting over tea (with our kids in view, playing) and talking about all this in person! If only! Anyway, thanks for thinking about this and making me think about this more while I composed this! =)
Just getting back to reading blogs. Thanks for another great post! I skimmed Honey For A Child’s Heart last week at my sister’s house and thought of you. One issue she raises is whether young children should read fantasy books. She says, “yes” because it’s imaginative and even young children know when we’re just pretending. But some other ppl I respect say, “No” because young children are just starting to sort out reality. What do you think?
I like Madeline and the Runaway Bunny. I seriously dislike all the Karma Wilson/Jane Chapman books b/c I think the plots are lame, except for Mortimer’s Christmas. That book is such a winner–love the pictures, story, and rich theological layers.
Oh, interesting! I really hope I get it for Christmas.=) Yeah, the fantasy thing is one we’ve discussed a bit…I think it really depends on the child and when they’re ready. In general, I think kids are smarter about a lot of things than I give them credit for, but it’s my responsibility to take note of that. When I presented a scaled-down version of this at an online classical homeschooling conference, the fantasy/mythology question came up, and one of my colleagues noted that they read through the entire Bible as a family before they start into mythology. Obviously in classical education circles, mythology is going to come into play at some point, so that was their family’s way of establishing that the Bible is true, but some other things we read are pretend. I kindof like that idea, and we have not yet introduced Tommy to classical mythology yet (we have some saved for down the road, when we’re sure he’s clear that their gods are false gods like Baal in the Bible).
In our situation, I feel like Tommy has a pretty good grasp of what’s real and what’s pretend, so he has never thought that animals can talk in real life, etc. (Talking animals is beginning fantasy, right? I might be thinking in a different fantasy vein than your friends are talking about?)
I do have friends with more literal kiddos, though, and they might decide to wait on some books that are otherwise morally okay just because their kids might not be ready to understand the subtlety of the fantasy. As always, it’s a parent’s job to assess what your particular child can handle. I’d still always ask if within the world of fantasy, there was something that contradicts Biblical principles–bad attitudes or disobedience are never okay, etc. (You can tell what our current household issues are, right? =) )