My question has to do with where she says “the diluted twaddle that is commonly thrust upon children” and “lesson-books with pretty pictures and easy talk, almost as good as story-books.” The lesson books, thrust upon them, would be high-quality literature. But what if they choose to read twaddle-style story-books during their free time? What’s wrong with story books? I read plenty of classic literature as a kid, but I also liked The Saddle Club. I don’t think it’s a problem; I don’t want to have to heavily restrict their library books that are read outside of school.
Agreed. But having a good stash of good literature available for their free reading will acclimatize their reading taste buds to that. One of the things I’ve learnt from Robinson is having high quality literature for them to read in their free time. E.g., there are loads of very interesting high quality literature on the RC book list that might interest a child during free reading time. Further, one of the reasons the Robinson kids turned out so well-educated was because they had abundance of good literature to read during both school time and free reading time - there was no twaddle. And as Tamsyn mentioned, Queen Elizabeth did no light reading. I personally I’m not a fan of twaddle - life is too short to spend reading things that don’t count and educate. Also check out this link on Amblesideonline - http://www.amblesideonline.org/QualityofBookSelection.shtml.
Hmm. Maybe I’ll restrict what we own to non-twaddle, and only make library trips once a week. There’s a suggestion in The Well-Trained Mind of requiring one book from each of several categories as well as any other books the child chooses on any library visit; maybe I’ll use that to reduce the amount of twaddle as well. But I don’t want to make all their library books pass my judgment of whether they’re high enough quality; that job just seems distasteful to me. Hopefully all the good literature they read will acclimatize them, as you said, and they’ll choose good things. But I won’t obsess over light, fluffy books sometimes, just like I’m not going to follow the Robinson “no sugar whatsoever” rule.
I am really enjoying this thread. It is a lot to digest. The one thing I have taken on board already is no sugar for the kids. Sophie (almost 3 years old) is generally pretty well behaved. However, after attending a birthday party a few weeks ago where she ate an entire cupcake, I noticed a deterioration in her ability to cope with challenges and frustration. I decided to cut out sugar to see what difference, if any, it would make. Well, I am delighted to say that she is on much more of an even keel since then.
Now, if I could only cut out my own chocolate addiction! Oh, I am also feeling ashamed of my internet/facebook/brillkids forum addiction!
seastar, I agree that cutting out desserts or other things where sugar is the main ingredient is totally worth it. But we have honey in our homemade granola and sugar in our home canned jellies and I’m not cutting those out of my child’s diet! Maybe I’m overthinking the “no sugar” rule, but if we make a smoothie of yogurt and frozen fruit, I don’t feel guilty putting a teaspoon of sugar in it. And we do eat desserts at Grandma’s house!
So after a few more years experience with the twaddle that’s available…here is the key quote from nee1 lovely link
A child can learn much of good and evil, right and wrong, and about people and their various motivations and how they think and what sorts of people make up the world - and he won’t get this from books that dumb down the language and leave out all the descriptive language and characterization.
I think that sums it up beautifully. In reading the twaddle the children will not be learning good character building skills, will not be made to think about motivations, will not be challenged by the reading level, they will not learn to copy a complex writing style, they will not internalise good vocabulary and they will most definitely learn bad manners and disrespect for their parents!
However please don’t think for a moment that nothing written this century is not GOOD quality literature. We have many picture books, beginner novels and novels that are recently written and still worth reading. They may not cover all the bases but they have their own merit. Fr example the magic tree house series might not use complex vocabulary but kids learn a lot from it and they learn good morals and it creates good minds eye pictures. Babysitters club may have good morals and perhaps you want your children to be entrepreneurs? I think it holds little more of value :laugh: I think reading the entire set would be a waste of your child’s time ( there are a ridiculous number of them now!) but a few wont hurt too much.
My advice would be to screen as much as you can. Many of today books ( especially the novels made for boys age 6-13) are total crap that actively teaches disrespect for elders and friends. Limit the twaddle and you will see improved choices in more than just book choice area. Remove it if your children are homeschooled if you like. Good luck removing it if they attend school! Here we have set time for reading the classics and if they want to read twaddle they can do that in their play time. Usually they don’t want to read it that badly. :biggrin: its a compromise we can all live with. I allow them choice within the classics.
Oh and not all the classics are all that perfect either. Some have poor sentence structure and lack of punctuation. Some are so simple in language they are no better than our modern options. But those are few and far between, no one said you had to finish every book your start. :nowink:
As for sugar well it sends my kids hypo so I use it when they need it. They are active kids remember. For 3 hours of gym training a slurpy is a good thing! It is heavily moderated here. One of my kids is very emotional from both TV and sugar ( and probably preservatives) so if she goes cranky we go healthy! Easy fix :biggrin:
Even many classics, such as Frankenstein were sensationist pulp, twaddle, back in their day. Now many consider this a classic.
This thread has really made me sit and think about the quality of the literature I have available. I have been thinking about a CM-style education for a year or so now, but only now has it really ‘clicked’ for me what twaddle is. I understood that challenging literature is great, but for free reading I was happy to allow whatever my son chose to read. I have even picked up a couple of sets of books that are popular with young boys when they were really cheap - one of which was Horrid Henry. I know my brother loved them in primary school but now, thinking about the actual content of the books makes me cringe. The whole series is about a naughty boy doing naughty things, whilst mocking his well-behaved, high achieving brother. WHY would I want my son to read that?! :ohmy:
I know the Enid Blyton books might be considered ‘twaddle’ on a literary level (I whizzed through one a day when I was eight or nine so they couldn’t have been that challenging), but at least characters are polite - or learn to be - and the morals are good. That is the sort of ‘easy reading’ that I would allow on occasion.
I’m now feeling more prepared to purge our house of twaddle! I might even go through my own books… :rolleyes:
I am not a fan of Curious George. Every book says how he is a good monkey. Then he does such naughty things. And at the every story there is a reward. James was getting so confused when I was reading the stories to him. He kept telling me that “naughty monkey” was being bad again. We gave up reading them.
I am completely for opening a dialogue about not what to do. But the thought of painting on walls is not even something that James would consider unless he reads about it elsewhere. So it is also giving him ideas of thins hat could be fun to do.
I don’t beleive he has the self discipline to always do good yet.
When I watched that video of A. Robinson, I sort of grinned because of his hard stance on TV and sugar. These are the two big things I’ve been working on eliminating from my personal habit and have been ardent with PokerMom about (she’s come some ways on the TV, but she’ll make me earn its elimination, let me tell you).
I had gotten to the point where I was drinking a soda per day and munching on sweets periodically. That might sound temperate, but it wasn’t - and really could only be seen that way from a US perspective (where our waistlines are bulging more and more at epidemic proportions). After reading, “The Power of Habit,” I had some ideas on how to curb the cravings and how to get rid of the soda addiction. It turned out, this was a keystone type of habit (where it helps you build up to other habits) and I dropped 20 pounds.
Needless to say, sugar, as it’s consumed by the typical person, will not be allowed in my house. I will allow sugar - but I will be very cautious about it.
The television is still plugged in, but I want to get rid of it so badly. I have an agreement to rid ourselves of the paid programming if I use torrents to download (unbelievably bad) her favorite shows. So I’ll have to earn it, but in reading this thread, what I already knew is staring me in the face - leave the TV on at my own demise.
We were doing smoothies every day until Cub developed some food allergies that made it a bit more difficult. I found there was no need to add any sugar if I mixed it right (bananas & oranges for sweetness)
As for children’s books: right now we do read curious george and have since he was born, but some stories are better than others. He mostly “forgets” to stay where he’s supposed to and things like that; many of his transgressions (from the stories I’ve read) are accidental or the result of not thinking things through - I suppose that could offer an opportunity to discuss, but obviously if he does something in the story that would give a kid a bad idea, then it’s just not worth it - which is why I had already banned “5 silly monkeys” - I do have 8 silly monkeys that someone bought for us and it’s so-so but I’ll stop reading it when he’s about a year old. Right now I can get away with a lot more!
I recently finished reading “The Dumbest Generation” and in it, the author discusses somewhere (sorry couldn’t find the page) how the typical children’s book exceeds the average conversation among college grads in terms of frequency of harder words. I thought this was interesting and perhaps worth a mention here as part of the discussion.
I found this website to have some very interesting ideas on twaddle: http://simplycharlottemason.com/2009/09/02/what-is-twaddle/ They asked readers to post a one-sentence definition in the comments; worth thinking about!
So I’m relaxing my definition a little. Any book that can be reread with pleasure by an adult, any book that teaches something, can be non-twaddle. So I can follow my instincts. The ones that bore me to tears I can get rid of. The simple ones I still love are probably OK. I like Mandab’s idea that lots of books have some good in them, even if they’re not perfect. I don’t have to obsess quite so much over it. That’s a nice realization.
Have you heard grad kids talk? Yeah, nah soooo not cool dude. Watz up? Freaky man. My peeps are clueless. It’s no big surprise children’s books have a higher level of vocal. The bar isn’t set that high 
to be fair many children’s books have beautiful writing. I really enjoy children’s books. I read them every day to both my kids and my class. I find almost daily that I am explaining some vocabulary as i read so I guess there are some tricky bits. I will be more careful now in my selections of pitied books just to be sure I am not introducing potential problems. But I actively hunt for books of good moral plots with an aim for class discussion anyway so I think I am pretty safe.
Poker dad I am surprised that you are allowing mow things you will eliminate next year. Do you not think pokercub is impressionable now? 
I finally caught up on this thread. But my kids LOVE curious George! 
lol
Just remember that “a spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down…”
That’s my philosophy for real sugar, and for twaddle too. We check out a lot of Disney books at our home, and they are definitely twaddle. I probably should look for better early readers. But on the other hand, nothing has inspired my 3-year-old to improve her reading like the variety of “Tangled” books at our library, and singing the music from the movie has really helped her develop her voice. So was that wasted time? No. Could I have chosen a better classic? Certainly. But a spoon full of sugar is all it takes, to turn bread and water into tea and cakes… It’s the spoonful after spoonful after spoonful that will get you into trouble!
I’ve been away from the forum for a couple of days and I missed so much discussion I haven’t looked at the last couple of links posted but I hope to do so later tonight.
First let me say I am far, far, far from the ideal in any of these areas. That is the reason I like some of the threads that come up on this forum. They convict me lol and hopefully inspire me to do better in some way.
My kids have lots of ‘twaddle’ in their books and honestly, I doubt that I would do a very good job of keeping it all out/censoring every book that they read especially as they get older and read more/faster. But, I do wonder about the idea of having them read good literature but then in their ‘free’ time allowing them to read twaddle (I really like that word by the way - sums things up in such a polite way). To me it is a bit like the tv debate (again I fall far from my ideal in this area). We all know how the children (and us!) can get sucked in by the television. Allow a little here and there and it slowly starts becoming longer/more often until we realise that we have gone beyond our boundaries and we have to take ‘drastic’ measures to get back on track. Would the same happen with books? My guess is yes it is just that we see reading as a better past time than tv and when we compare ourselves to the average family our children are making better use of their time. But if we compare our children to those of a few generations ago or those that have achieved an excellent education are they spending their time in a more quality way? And I think that we can all agree that the average child is not what we want to aim for otherwise we wouldn’t be spending so much time discussing these types of issues. We would all be off watching whatever the latest series on tv is.
And, I think the same is true with sugar. I wish I could be as strict as Dr Robinson (although he does admit to his own sugar addiction 
) We have done both ways. We have a daughter with autism so we have done the strict diet (with all the family) as well as had the usual amount of bread, dairy and sugar etc… I find when we start allowing ‘just a little bit’ of rubbish or ‘just for special occassions’ things start quickly going down hill and we end up with more and more. Because like entertainment and simple books it is easier. I love being able to feed my children a toasted cheese sandwich (or yoghurt and muesli which is their current love) for lunch rather than cooking some type of meat and vegetables for every meal. Is a sandwich bad? Well, no not when I compare it to the meals most of the other children around eat. But compared to what I know about good nutrition and excellence in nutrition than it falls short.
But, maybe the problem actually lies with me and my lack of will power. Maybe if I had more self-control in some of these areas I would be able to regulate my children’s tv viewing or sugar intake better. Maybe we could have a little bit and stick to the little bit. But sugar is an area I really struggle with. TV viewing no but internet yes which really isn’t that much better in a lot of ways. But I also know that having just a little bit of sugar makes the body crave it more and it is actually easier for most people to give up sugar in all forms so that the taste buds acclimatise to foods without the sweetness than to try to control their intake. And I wonder if the same is true for books (or DVDs etc…). By allowing a little bit do we then just set up the child to want more.
As to Dr Robinson’s no electronics. I would be interested to know whether he would still have that rule today? I think in a lot of ways it is probably a good rule but I’m just not sure how practicle it is nowdays when so much of what we do is based in technology. It definitely is hard to control though as we all know :biggrin:
Well considering almost all of the classics we own are in digital format ( no chance could I validate the printing and environmental costs of printing all those out BTW) we have no intentions of going without technology! I do think these days you would be silly to completely ban technology. But limiting it to ensure it isn’t a time Sapper is probably the best idea :yes: it’s the hours of wasted passive viewing that I think is the real issue. The time that takes away from real learning, thinking and constructive activities.
Our TV viewing immediately reduced to almost never as soon as we put the TV in another room that is not close to the everyday living areas. It is in a media room as far from “life” as possible. TV is important to my hubby but it bores the crap out of me. My brain goes faster than most TV shows and I usually watch and read a book or watch and chat to you lot here I hope in years to come that TV bores my children too :biggrin:
I think there are certain uses of technology that I would like to ban - calculators being a definite no-no (unless absolutely impossible to go without at high level maths) and word processing is one I have problems with, too - I want beautiful handwriting and correct spelling, not text speak and spellcheck. At the same time, learning to type and use a word processor is an essential skill in modern society and almost every office-based job requires good IT skills. Maybe as an extra-curricular with strict time limits…
Likewise, general surfing the internet is a massive time sapper, but there are so many good ways to use it for research etc. that again, I think it will have to be time-restricted access rather than completely banned (this would be good for me, too :laugh:)
So Jim Trelease author of The Read Aloud Handbook has some interesting thoughts on this. Here is a quote from his website (which is excellent by the way if you don’t have the book)
I recall two complaints given to me at seminars: A mother arguing that Gone With the Wind should not be included in a fourth-grade classroom and another who urged that Snow Falling on Cedars should not be made part of the eighth-grade core curriculum. I agreed with both parties, not from a moral standpoint but from a curriculum standpoint. Both books were written with adult audiences in mind, including a writing structure, historic perspective, and subject matter that are not within the normal range of development for children in those respective grades. By heaping those books on children at those ages, we run the risk of boring or drowning them with the book, neither of which helps us raise lifetime readers—the ultimate objective of schooling.It has been made more than obvious that exposing children to the classics before they can handle them has NOT resulted in either higher reading scores or higher sales for classics, so why would someone think these two adult novels will do that? There’s more than enough room for these books in the home or the school/public library. (The eighth-grade Cedars choice smacks of secondary teachers who personally prefer reading “adult” over “young adult” literature and probably would opt to teach on the college level anyway.)
From this link http://www.trelease-on-reading.com/censor_entry.html
He writes a lot in his book about growing male readers (tips like they should if possible see their fathers reading) and other tips like using teletex when the tv is on, and importance of comics and series like Enid Blyton books in creating people who see themselves as life long readers. It all made sense to me. Yes, I am currently trying to introduce Douglas to Beatrix Potter and Winnie the Pooh (original AA Milne version) and after months of looking at the pictures with him he’s starting to be interested in the stories, but I wouldn’t be put off letting him read TinTin comics or anything by Enid Blyton whose books I loved as a child. Seeing yourself as someone who loves to read is not just about your ability to comprehend more complex language structures in classics, it’s about having a burning desire for a good book! And that should not be sensored at all I don’t believe, maybe managed in terms of quantity (e.g. by having a rich library and fixed selections for home/after school reading), but not sensored. An extension of loving books could be wanting to write your own, and if a child is going to be a young author they are unlikely to write a classic novel, but a highly imaginative children’s book/play, so reading widely is helpful in exposing them to differently types of stories.
About TV, we only have a DVD player at home, but we certainly as parents consume a lot of tv on the internet. I do especially, but I really am interested in the script, the cinematography sometimes, and even in analyzing the breadth of programming on the BBC sometimes lol I used to love deconstructing adverts from a psychological perspective. I think film can be very interesting and used to tell very interesting stories in very interesting ways. Yes this includes cartoons (hello Pixar!) and foreign film (I don’t even always need subtitles!). So whilst I am not against film, I do agree that screen technology can have an addictive effect on children so I rather Douglas did other things with his time than stick his nose in a screen at the tender age of 2. As he gets older I won’t restrict what he wants to see in a cinema or family film night as long as its age appropriate.
I have been following this thread with great interest! Thanks for all the stimulating discussion!
My solution for twaddle is simple. Ella can read all the twaddle books she likes in her free time (as long as there is no disrespectful language, rude behavior, or other negative role modeling in the books) only if the books are NOT in English. These include chapter books about Disney princesses, Disney fairies, Strawberry Shortcake, etc. She usually chooses to read them in Chinese or French. I have noticed that the same books in Chinese are written at a higher reading level with more difficult vocabulary than those written in English. So I don’t feel guilty letting her read them, and she gets a chance to enjoy her twaddle. Same thing with Disney movies - I let her watch DVDs on Friday movie nights but only in Chinese, French, Spanish, or Japanese. She doesn’t feel left out when she gets together with her cousins and playmates and they start talking about Disney cartoons and characters. She doesn’t watch any TV.
As for technology and computers, I am afraid this is the main thing I disagree with in the Robinson method. In fact, I have already lined up several interesting Computer Programming curricula and resources for Ella to get into when the time is right. :biggrin:
Aangeles that is brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! Now I have a firm reason to teach that second language that is a great way to ensure repeated exposure and reading in all languages. I love it! And yes I could bet the Chinese ( probably all Asian languages) are written at a higher level. Since overall those parents set a higher standard. Plus getting twaddle in the second language would be much easier than finding quality literature in the second language!
Is anyone else interested in a thread that reviews the classics from an early learners perspective? I am wounding as we have read a few now but it’s really hit and miss as to age appropriateness. Since my kids read above grade level they can read anything from the list and arnt reading in any order. I will try to get them into some type of order as the year goes on but would love others to highlight potential problems with certain books. I am thinking of flagging death, disrespectful behaviour and religion ( just so people know its there if that’s important to them) plus also making a minimum age suggestion and even a maximum age suggestion as some of the books are pretty young in themes or value. I don’t want to restrict it to Robinson curriculum books but classics overall. What do you think?