Today - the 31st August - we are delighted to have a Guest Illustrator Post from Patrice Aggs..
Patrice Aggs writes and illustrates children's books. Her latest is Yi Er San, My First Chinese Nursery Rhymes (Frances Lincoln). Right now she's obsessed with kids' comics, and is about to begin her 4th adventure series for The Phoenix.
Welcome, Patrice!
Thank you - and hello to everyone at An Awfully Big Blog Adventure!
Let's start a bit of action:
My new research project for my academic work is on precocious children in literature and culture. I was trying to explain this in wobbly Spanish to my friend in Madrid by saying that I was studying 'el niño precocido', which made her burst out laughing - turns out it means the 'precooked child'.
It's a shame I'm not actually doing that; as far as I'm aware, it's a very undertheorised motif.
 |
| Maurice Sendak, In the Night Kitchen |
Anyway, the term 'precooked' keeps popping back into my head as I read. Throughout the 20th century, there's been a conceptual battle around the question of child precocity in child psychology and the sociology of education. 'Precocious' children are now widely considered, as the etymology suggests, to be '
praecox',
'ripe before their age', mostly thanks to an alignment of good circumstances: supportive family and school environments, task commitment, and above all social valuation of whichever type of 'intelligence' the child manages to develop ahead of peers.
But the literature, though it does acknowledge parental involvement in so-called child 'precocity',
can be vociferous against parents. Parents are often described as 'pushing' their child, 'too early', with no regard for 'normal development'. In other words,
they're indeed 'precooking' their child in the hope that it will have the equivalent effect as their 'ripening early'. And everyone knows that no amount of apple compote will make up for their being unripe.
Even scientifically rigorous articles get into very harsh denunciations of parents who try to 'create' 'precocious' children.
Some scholars make the striking claim that exceptional children ahead of their peers who have been 'pushed' by their parents don't 'deserve' to be called precocious. Since the notion is essentially fallacious, its definition fluctuates anyway, but the hostility against the 'pushy parent' is interestingly intense.
Roald Dahl's
Matilda famously begins with a critique of such parents:
It’s a funny thing about mothers and fathers. Even when their own child is the most disgusting little blister you could ever imagine, they still think that he or she is wonderful.
Some parents go further. They become so blinded by adoration they manage to convince themselves their child has qualities of genius.
Children's books and films are indeed generally quite severe against parents who 'push' their children to 'overachieve', and don't grant them the same status as children presented as 'naturally gifted'.There's a clear moral split between the precooked and the precocious, even if in effect they achieve the same results.  |
| The bad precocious child |
Dahl is at the forefront - think of the punishments endured by the 'precooked' children of pushy parents in
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
The myth of child precocity is paradoxical. It's torn between conflicting adult desires that such children should be, on the one hand,
entirely unexplainable (a conservative, mystical view of precocity) and on the other hand,
possible to create (from a more liberal democratic perspective).
So
we don't like the idea that some children should be born with more 'gifts' than others: that hurts our egalitarianism. But at the same time,
we definitely don't like to see how they're made, how they're cooked, specifically by their parents. It feels like we're just being tricked ('it's not real precocity!'). The ambiguity of this discourse is reflected in scientific articles about child precocity or 'giftedness', and often in children's books and films.
 |
| TMI. |
At heart,
we want to believe in the possibility of a 'miraculous' child whose intelligence and creativity has no rational explanation. We also think that pushy parents are only pushy out of pure narcissism. And also, yes, we're jealous: who are these parents who are so 'gifted' at this parenting thing? (Judging from my Facebook feed, it's a ferocious competition out there).
We prefer to think that they will suffer a sad fate, and their children too. They will be punished for precooking children when they aren't ripe enough. HA!
Children's literature from Jacqueline Wilson to J.K. Rowling often indulges in such dreams, with
cautionary tales that such 'fake precocious children' will never 'achieve their potential' and instead end up depressed and lonely - or, for the more positive tales, rebel before they're completely rotten.
 |
| The good precocious child |
How hypocritical we writers can be... We know that we depend on an army of pushy middle-class parents to get their kids to read our books; increasingly so with the rumoured decline of the book. We deify precocious, 'gifted', 'genius' children in our texts. And we desperately want to have an impact on children, too.
And yet
the ideal precocious child is uncooked, free from additives, a mystery to all. It is a child who laughs at the efforts of well-meaning adults to influence her.
That ideal precocious child lands in our writerly nets.
And then we can give it our books.
Children's literature is absolutely OK with 'real' precocious child characters reading our books. We just
love being in charge of the cooking.
_____________________________________
Clementine Beauvais,
hypocrite auteur of several books featuring precocious children, writes in both French and English. The former are of all kinds and shapes, and the latter a humour/adventure detective series, the
Sesame Seade mysteries (Hodder). She blogs
here about children's literature and academia and is on Twitter @
blueclementine.
I’m interviewing potential roommates all week, and a dilemma this has raised is: how much do I want to portray a better version of myself that someone might actually want to live with, vs. portraying myself accurately so I find someone who actually wants to live with me?
Specifically, this dilemma has come up around cleaning my house, because I am a mess, but attempting to reform, and I know from experience that if I live with another messy person, it’s all over. I need to live with someone who has a culture of putting things away so that I learn how to do it, too. But if I live with someone who’s deeply bothered by mess and clutter… well, we’ll kill each other within the month.
So it’s a delicate balance. With house cleaning, I found — I think — a middle ground involving presenting myself as I realistically aspire to be: the place is neat, but you can kind of tell that the person who lives here doesn’t totally have her shit together.
But anyway, especially now that the place is cleaned up, it strikes me how much the books are the dominating feature of the space. Piles and piles and piles of books. Books about politics and history (the vast majority), books about writing and statistics, and oh so many children’s books.*
I actually mentioned in my Craigslist ad that I bring to the roommate relationship an outstanding collection of classic teen television on DVD. Now maybe I’ll find a roommate who walks in and gets excited by my Sarah Dessen collection. Or the Ramonas. I would definitely trust a roommate who still felt strongly about Ramona.
* The last all live together; I have a case that’s just for my books — my books on things my boyfriend doesn’t care about, that is — which has all the kids’ books, the stats and math books, and the books on teen TV, all living together happily. (The political books, we read each other’s.)
This is possible only because the overwhelming preponderance of my children’s books still reside in New York. Some of these are at my parents’ house, and I cycle some of these back and some of those here when I visit; I should just have them all shipped to me. More of my old favorites, my mom tells me, are “in storage,” and all I can say is that I sincerely hope that’s not a euphemism in the vein of, “Furrball is so happy out on the dairy farm in Westchester!”
Posted in Childhood Reading, This--like so many things--is all about me
Like the blogger Drek at the sociology blog Scatterplot, from which I am stealing this video, I take things much too literally. I, too, blame this trait for my inability to “get” poetry (a fact which causes no end of frustration to my boyfriend, who writes it; he thinks I’m just not trying).
There’s a particular irony in my case, though, because I am a highly sarcastic individual. And yet also highly gullible, as I am, inexplicably, prone to interpreting others credibly. Said boyfriend and I used to live in Brooklyn, where we had a really busybody landlord living on the ground floor of the same building — a fact I was not too happy about. I was kind of ill when we moved in, so I went to sleep in the middle of the floor, surrounded by boxes, while he went out with his friend. The next morning I was expressing my fears about living with a landlord who always seemed to be hanging around watching, when this exchange occurred:
BOYFRIEND: Yeah, she was still sitting outside watching when I got in last night.
ELIZABETH: What? What time was that?
BOYFRIEND: Maybe 2, 3 AM.
ELIZABETH: Oh my god. We’ll never be able to get away from her! We’ll have to run in and out of the house!
BOYFRIEND: Actually, she said she was going to stop by for brunch this morning.
ELIZABETH: [horror]
BOYFRIEND: I think she’ll be here any minu– [pauses, listening] — Is that her?
ELIZABETH: [grim, efficient determination] Okay, let’s think. Maybe we can sneak out the window!
I was totally serious, y’all. (We lived on the third floor of a building with very high ceilings, by the way.) The boyfriend, fortunately, was not.
Anyway, after that excessively long and irrelevant set-up, here is the literally-minded Total Eclipse of the Heart:
And now, to finally make this nominally relevant to our blog: I have noticed that my reading habits have changed with the blog, and I’m not sure if it’s blogging itself (which has made me think more about what I’m reading and take note of cool lines for the Wednesday Words) or things I started doing at around the same time, which partially inspired me to start the blog (reading other blogs, reading books about how fiction is constructed, reading more new children’s lit instead of my same old favorites). But one thing I’ve observed is how much more I appreciate metaphors than I did when I was little.
Like, I had this bizarre experience reading PAPER TOWNS:
Internal Monologue Dialogue
- I love this passage about the strings and the ships and the grass!
- Um, it’s a two-page passage about metaphors for death.
- But it’s beautiful!
- The characters are talking to each other about what’s the best metaphor for death!!!
- But they’re picking such good ones!
(I have very explicit arguments with myself in my head.)
So, is this just a sign of getting older — I was never one of those super-literary kids; I loved to read, but it was always trash — or is book blogging going to make me a more high-minded reader? Might I somehow become a poetry fan after all??
(…Doubtful.)
Posted in Childhood Reading, Green, John, Paper Towns, This--like so many things--is all about me
Everybody loves THE PHANTOM TOLLBOOTH. It is many of my friends’ absolute all-time favorite kids book. I know I read it as a kid. I know I didn’t like it. I know I didn’t read it again. And that’s all I remember, and somehow even though everyone was always saying how much they loved it, I never picked it up again until now. Anyway, that’s the back story.
My feeling on recent reading is this: good book, but I totally can see why it hit wrong with me as a kid. Because the number one adjective I want to use for THE PHANTOM TOLLBOOTH is clever. Its incredibly clever. Its witty. The wordplay and puns are great, and I’m sure I would have picked up on them and enjoyed them back then as well.* But clever and witty alone does not a great book make. And that I think is my problem with this one. I did enjoy it. But I wasn’t really engrossed at all – there’s very little character-building, the characters are all kind of purposefully caricatures, and even when feelings or reactions by people were described, they were just kind of stated very matter of fact. I never actually found myself identifying with anyone. And while the constant humor kept the story from feeling like there was too much moralizing, it was nevertheless very clear that at each place, and with each character, a not-so-subtle point was being made about modern life, the way people behave, etc; to the point where those points felt in and of themselves to be the purpose of the story. Again, not something that really draws you (or at least me) in.
My other issue was that even plot-wise, the story kind of reads like a litany of “and then this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened.” Not much variety in pacing, and no time spent once the “point” of each episode had taken place – just “ok, that happened, next.” I’m being a little more negative than I really felt while I was reading the book – I really did enjoy it. But I can also totally see how as a kid I would have gotten bored. Puns are funny. A few pages or even a few chapters of clever wordplay and obvious-but-still-fun set-ups are fun. But a whole book of that and nothing else just isn’t enough.
Actually, now that I’m writing this and thinking it through further, I feel like a lot of the pieces of THE PHANTOM TOLLBOOTH would make for great picture books – short, clever, funny stories, with imaginative premises, and a lot of great illustrations already included. But a whole series of those just strung together one after another doesn’t quite do it for me. And that’s why I can’t summon the love of this book that so many folks have (although I’m glad that I now see why they do love it. Especially as so many of my friends are language-loving types), and why I probably read it once, was kind of amused and kind of bored, and was left without a strong enough impression to lead me to pick it up again.
*I was raised in a very pun-filled household. In my family, birthdays and other card-giving occasions are basically a standing competition to see who can find the card with the best pun or bad joke. There have been some real prize finds over the years.
Posted in Books I felt I ought to have liked but really didn't, Childhood Reading, Feiffer, Jules, Flawed does not preclude Interesting, Juster, Norton, Phantom Tollbooth, The
During the month of May I am holding a contest. Comment on this blog with a list of your child's five favorite books (or any child in your life). Give child's first name and age. I will draw one name each week and the winner each week will receive one of my books on CD for the computer. If you haven't seen flip books on the computer you don't know what you're missing!
May 9: Misadventures of Rooter and Snuffle
May 16: On the Go With Rooter and Snuffle
May 23: Trouble Finds Rooter and Snuffle
May 30: Nothing Stops Noah
Before picking up HARRIET THE SPY by Louise Fitzhugh again, I tried to remember why I didn’t like it many years ago. And all I could remember was that it gave me an uncomfortable, squirmy, unhappy sort of feeling that stemmed from reading about Harriet doing things she shouldn’t that were clearly going to cause Bad Things to happen. Now what’s odd is I wasn’t really a goody-two-shoes kid, and I liked lots of other books about characters that were naughty, or even who did things I felt they shouldn’t, who did things that I saw as hurtful, etc. So there must have been something more to it than that, but my memory consists entirely of the squirmy feeling.*
And then I opened the book, and the degree to which this is an obnoxious girl with no discernable redeeming qualities, with whom I cannot sympathize at all, and who is not even interesting to make up for it, absolutely bowled me over. Harriet’s attitude towards the people on the subway when they go to visit Ole Golly’s mother really turned me off. I began to get slightly more interested in Harriet as a character only when her spy notes began to be less observations and more musings. Like:
What is too old to have fun? You can’t be too old to spy except if you were fifty you might fall off a fire escape, but you could spy around on the ground a lot.
Harriet’s reaction to being an onion for the Christmas play went a long way towards endearing her to me as well, so by mid-book I actually cared about the main character, which is helpful. I vaguely recollect that my original reaction to Harriet’s friends reading her notebook was more on the friends’ side, but this time through I thoroughly empathized with Harriet, particularly as she goes through the subsequent days miserable and misunderstood. So from that turning point on I was properly hooked, and I really did enjoy the rest of the book, but I likely wouldn’t have gotten that far naturally (like, without being determined to finish and blog about the book).
A few other random thoughts:
- What the hell kind of a name is Ole Golly? I mean, seriously.
- I think Harriet seems like a 9 year old, not an 11 year old. The things she wonders about, her level of awareness (or lack thereof) of her friends’ and classmates’ having feelings, and just her general behavior, don’t ring true of an 11-year old for me. That made it hard for me to buy into the character; I eventually just decided that in my mind she’d be 9, and that made it all work much better.
- I suspect as a child I was confused by the progressive-type school Harriet attends, particularly as it would have seemed incongruous with the other time period cues given in terms of the parents’ behavior, etc.
- I’m not sure I find it believable that Harriet was permitted to print the newsletter items she did - but I enjoyed the twist of her not actually being reformed or learning her lesson.
*I recall a different kind of squirmy feeling from some books that I loved but that creeped me out or were deeply affecting in a way that stuck for days after reading (especially Time windows book), so that I started hesitating to re-read them, even though I loved them, because it was too big a psychological commitment. I do a similar thing with some movies now - I really want to see them, but I’m sure they’ll leave me depressed, and I’m never willing to commit to that so I keep really wanting to see them but when the time comes to actually sit down and watch something I choose fluff.
Posted in Childhood Reading, Fitzhugh, Louise, Harriet the Spy
This is the first installment of a new series/experiment. There are plenty of books I never liked, and that’s fine, but there are a few that I felt a kind of compunction to like, and was always kind of regretful that I didn’t So, (here’s the experiment part) I’m going to read them again, and see what I think now. The thing is, once I didn’t like these books the one time I read them as a child, of course I didn’t read them again, so I have limited, vague memories of why I didn’t like them, which makes it hard to hold up my side in discussion with everyone who love love loves them.
Anyway, first up is ANNE OF GREEN GABLES by L.M. Montgomery. This one is actually a slight exception to the group, because I
never felt as much of a strong sense that I ought to like this book as a kid. But what’s puzzling is I loved Montgomery’s EMILY OF NEW MOON and its sequels, read them over and over again. Granted, they had the special appeal of a main character with my name, which I’m sure is what made me spot them and pull them off the shelf in the first place. Because I loved the EMILY series so much, I tried ANNE a few times over the years…and never got past the first couple of chapters, it was just too boring. So then I stopped trying it, until, as an adult, I discovered the deep love many of my friends have for the ANNE books (and movie, which I have not seen). So I gave it a shot last week, and definitely would have put it down again after a couple chapters if it hadn’t been for my determination to do this post. I will say, about half way through it got a lot more engaging, and while I don’t think I’d read it again I’m glad I got through it the once.
I think the issue is that it has a lot of what I don’t like so much in the EMILY books, but amplified, and without much of what I do like. In both, I lose patience with the endless descriptions and have to skim - I started enjoying ANNE a lot more once I started skimming. But I find the devices used in the EMILY books to express that side of the character more believable, and less inclined to take over the whole character. Anne’s defining characteristic is her imagination - she gets lost in imaginings and forgets what’s going on around her, and talks endlessly about her imaginings and observations and how beautiful various trees are. Whereas Emily gets similarly lost in her writing, which for me is more believable than a 12 year old spending hours and hours just sitting and imagining; and Emily’s endless descriptions of how beautiful something is, etc come out primarily in her writing, so they don’t dominate her interactions with people and her whole character as much.
Another key difference for me is that the other characters in the EMILY books are both more interesting and better developed than the supporting characters in ANNE OF GREEN GABLES. Emily’s friends are fully developed and have interesting and distinct personalities, whereas Anne’s friends are kind of flat and boring. And Emily’s adversaries are much more genuinely adversarial than Anne’s - there’s a clear parallel between Marilla in ANNE and Aunt Elizabeth in EMILY, but Marilla gives really only token opposition, whereas Aunt Elizabeth and Emily genuinely clash throughout much of the first book. Plus Emily has Aunt Ruth and her teacher to detest, whereas Anne has no parallel foes.
The reason I’m writing so much about the EMILY books in this post about ANNE OF GREEN GABLES is that most of my sense of ought-to-like-it for ANNE came from the fact that I loved the EMILY books. But I’ve now concluded that the EMILY books are really quite excellent, whereas ANNE is mediocre and kind of boring, so I am now content with my lack of ANNE love.
Next up in this series: Louise Fitzhugh’s HARRIET THE SPY. But maybe not for a little while, because its not the easiest thing to get yourself to sit down and read a book you think you’re not going to like, and two in a row is just too much. Besides, I have to go re-read the EMILY books now that I’ve thought so much about them.
Posted in Anne of Green Gables, Childhood Reading, Emily of New Moon, Flawed, however, can indeed coincide with uninteresting, Montgomery, L.M.
A HOMESCHOOL VIEW FROM HANLIE STEYNBERG
Please introduce yourself to my readers.
Hi, My name is Hanlie and I live in South Africa. My husband and I have 3 children, one dd (9 turning 10), one ds(7) and one dd(4). We started homeschooling when the oldest was turning 4, so that is about 7 years ago. Our kids have never been in public school.
What attracted you to homeschooling? Do you need a college degree to homeschool?
In our country there are many unknowns, including our children's futures. We want to give them the best possible education we can. No, you don't need a college degree.
What are the benefits to homeschooling your children?
The benefits are numerous. First of all your kids get one-on-one attention most of the time while learning. Each get to progress at their own pace, and their own interests are followed and explored. Then comes the benefit of quality time with mom and dad, as well as better sibling relationships.
Are there drawbacks? What are they?
The only drawbacks we have encountered is that most of my time is invested in my children(not exactly a drawback?)
Do you purchase curriculum? Is it expensive?
We are fortunate enough to be able to buy our curriculum, and also resources from different sources. However, it can be done on a very tight budget as well.
What part do books, other than curriculum, play in homeschooling?
We love our books! It takes us to new countries, lets us meet new people, and give us something to dream about!!
Do you buy a lot of books or use the library or both?
We do both.
Does fiction play a part in homeschooling? How did you decide which books to get?
For us, it does. It fuels our children's imaginations and lets them be creative!! I usually read many online reviews about books, and also look at which books are included in reputable curriculum suppliers' catalogues. We also use many books with a christian moral or theme.
Do games play a major part in teaching? Did you use puzzles and games to teach reading?
It does, especially when they are young. Yes, we use quite a few games, because as soon as kids are having fun and learning hands on, they learn so much faster!
How did you encourage your children to read? Did you have any reluctant readers? How did you encourage their reading?
By reading good books to them and providing them with books about their interests. Yes, I did have one - my oldest dd is a kinestethic learner, so she had to MOVE while she learnt the basics. Today, she is reading at 2 levels above her age, and devours anything that resembles a book!!
Hanlie, thank you for helping us get acquainted with the homeschool view.
Thank you for the chance to introduce our family to you!!
Children are eager to learn to read and love being read to. I have been trying to come up with some tips for helping and encouraging them to read. These are mine...now give me yours.
#1. When reading to children use lots of energy and inflection in your voice. Do voices for the characters if you can. Show emotion on your face.
#2. Show the pictures as you read to help their comprehension. Do ask questions but don't interrupt the flow of the story. Wait until the end. Did they learn anything from the story?
#3. When your child shows an interest in something new encourage them to read more about it. Look for books on the subject at the local library. Their own library card is very important.
#4. Give your child the opportunity to read to you often. Encourage them to read to siblings or even to teddy bears or dolls.
#5. Play simple word games with your kids. Memory with word cards instead of pictures.
There are my five now give me five more!
Have you given any thought to "why" you read? I suppose we all read to learn new things, keep up with what is going on in the world around us, and because we have a curiosity to know more. I often read fiction when I need to relax or replenish the well. Sometimes I think reading is an escape. That may sound like a bad thing, but I think it is actually a good thing. It is sort of a vacation from the reality of our problems and day to day living. I may read one book after another until I realize it is time to return to the real world. Then I take a break from reading for awhile until the need strikes me again.
We all read without really thinking about it. We read mail, documents, bills, menus, forms, labels, the Bible, and notes from the teacher, just to name a few. We read because we must. Reading helps us navigate through our lives. We would truly be lost if we couldn't read.
Sadly, there are still people in this world who cannot read, but gratefully, there are volunteers willing to teach them. That is how important it is. It is important that as parents we encourage our children to read the funny papers, cereal boxes, billboards, church bulletins, road signs, menus, and books. You will give them a better today and a brighter future.
Expand their universe. Make sure each of your children has a library card. Teach them to use the library. Help them pick out books about subjects that interest them, both fiction and non-fiction. They will be better students and more interesting adults because of your encouragement. Those reading choices will help to shape their character and be responsible for the person they become.
Why do you read?
With the hustle and bustle of family life these days parents and children are on the move all the time. Parents are so focused on being sure their children don't miss out on anything that they sign them up for sports, clubs, play dates, and after school events that barely give them time to breathe. Sure you want to give your children well rounded lives, but quiet is a necessary part of life too. Children need quiet time, and the skills and tools to make the most of it.
Winter weather provides a perfect time to instill a love of reading in your children. Provide a comfy, cozy, well lit corner or a pleasant bedroom where they can snuggle up with a good book and turn those indoor times into adventures that take them to warm, sunny places where they can explore worlds they have never known.
Provide them with books from the bookstore or library. Encourage them to read when they are whining "I'm bored". That is a good time for you to pick a cozy chair and curl up with a good book of your own. Children learn by example. What kind of reading example are you? When and where do you read, and how often?
As a child I loved to read about animals (Bambi, White Fang, My Friend Flicka), and mysteries (The Bobbsey Twins, Nancy Drew). I also loved to read about real people (Little House on the Prairie books). I even read Tom Sawyer. I find my taste in books hasn't changed much. I read books for adults of course, but I still love cozy mysteries, autobiographies, and sometimes, books about animals. I even read the Harry Potter books.....all of them.
Mary Jean Kelso wrote:
I don't remember having favorites until I was probably in fourth or fifth grade. Then, Nancy Drew became collectible to me. I still have some of the original books. Not many as I didn't have much disposable money. However, I thought so highly of them I shellacked the bindings of some.
You can see the influence in my Goodbye Is Forever YA mystery novel.
My latest Children's PB was One Family's Christmas but the 3rd Andy book is due to release this winter. Andy and Spirit in the Big Rescue. http://www.amazon.com/Familys-Christmas-Mary-Jean-Kelso/dp/1935137050/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231525191&sr=1-1
Ronica Stromberg, Author of The Time-for-bed Angel wrote:
My favorite book as a child was The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, followed by The Borrowers. These were pre-Harry Potter days, and there didn't seem to be much fantasy . . . or maybe I just wasn't able to find it as a child.
The Time-for-bed Angel follows the adventures of a guardian angel of a rambunctious little boy who refuses to go to bed. The story can be comforting and reassuring for small children that they are loved and watched over at all times--even in the dark.
http://www.amazon.com/Time-Bed-Angel-Ronica-Stromberg/dp/0825478154/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231520358&sr=1-1
I'm hoping Ronica will tell me what she enjoys reading today. When I hear from her I will add it to this post.
In the meantime....What did you like to read as a child? Have your tastes changed?
.jpg?picon=1806)
0 Comments on AUGUST'S GUEST ILLUSTRATOR: PATRICE AGGS as of 8/31/2014 3:21:00 AM
never felt as much of a strong sense that I ought to like this book as a kid. But what’s puzzling is I loved Montgomery’s EMILY OF NEW MOON and its sequels, read them over and over again. Granted, they had the special appeal of a main character with my name, which I’m sure is what made me spot them and pull them off the shelf in the first place. Because I loved the EMILY series so much, I tried ANNE a few times over the years…and never got past the first couple of chapters, it was just too boring. So then I stopped trying it, until, as an adult, I discovered the deep love many of my friends have for the ANNE books (and movie, which I have not seen). So I gave it a shot last week, and definitely would have put it down again after a couple chapters if it hadn’t been for my determination to do this post. I will say, about half way through it got a lot more engaging, and while I don’t think I’d read it again I’m glad I got through it the once.
Totally agree with the Ramona comment. Cleary and the Little House books were my favorites.
Heh. I feel the same way except maybe with Judy Blume for the Ramona books. And of course, the BSC. Actually in college, I had a suitemate just like this. We would order BSC books on eBay for way cheap all the time and our other two “normal” suitemates would just kind of look on in shock and awe and a vague sense of, “Are you two insane?” Sigh. MEMORIES!
I know what you mean with the cleaning situation. I lived with two roommates who drove me crazy because one had this thing about the floor being cleaned but she’d leave coffee stains all over the counter. Naturally the other had to have clean counters but didn’t care about the floor….
Hee. Like Lenore’s two former roommates, I am a funny mix of crazy messy (in a way that drives others nuts) and oddly fussy about some things. The boyfriend and I fight about this because I’ll try to enforce him taking his shoes off or dealing with the recycling appropriately or what have you, but it won’t occur to me that I could hang up my coat or put a book back on the shelf instead of leaving them both on the couch…
I told a professor of mine that I had conceptual problems with cleaning, which is totally true (I recently hired a housecleaner and was so startled by some of the things she thought to do!), only to realize slightly too late (when I witnessed the prof’s alarm at this evidence of my lack of intellectual prowess) that this is the kind of thing one keeps to oneself in grad school.
I definitely think you want a roommate who is well aware of your book-love. She doesn’t have to love the same things you do, she just needs to respect them.
You are also on-target with the cleaning thing. It’s deadly for someone with messy tendencies to be with another messy-type. We need the pressure of a clean roommate to keep us working towards a more orderly space.
I am the worst type of messy: I like things to be neat, but I suck at keeping them that way. Thus, I am always annoyed at both myself and others for being messy. That goes over really well with roommates!
Good luck in the roommate search!
Well, I did meet two potential roommates today. I meant to be really honest with them about my status as a messy-in-the-process-of-reforming person (even while I have cleaned the apartment so its intrinsic niceness is not disguised beneath all of my crappy detritus), but with one I forgot to bring it up. I find these whole interactions super hard and awkward. I don’t know what kinds of questions to ask to figure out if I’d live well with someone. Why don’t I have better social skills???
Perhaps I should read more books set in boarding schools for possible roommate-relevant scenarios to inquire about… there is a new Gallagher Girls book out now. (I refuse to buy that series, but enjoy reading them in the Borders cafe.) “You seem nice enough and unlikely to invade my personal space… but will you help me engineer an elaborate scheme involving sophisticated spy technology to find out if a boy might want to ask me out?”
Oh yeah, and: the person who just left here was indeed startled by the numerosity of my books. What can I say? I’m a book fetishist. The greatest thing about my boyfriend having begun working in publishing is that sometimes I can pretend that I do, too.