That was my first reaction to the list of ten books in this Seattle Times article, books recommended by children's librarian Nancy Pearl. (Or, as the headline in the print copy calls her, our own "rock star librarian".)
That first reaction was too strong. My second reaction to the list was to think that this woman really hates boys.
That second reaction was also too strong. There is one book of the ten that a normal boy might like, The Eagle of the Ninth. It is by far the oldest book on the list — and I don't think that's a coincidence.
But I think it entirely fair to conclude from that list that Nancy Pearl does not understand normal boys. (And may not understand normal girls, either. As a one time boy, it is easier for me to guess what boys would like to read than what girls would like to read. Girls, and those who have been girls, are invited to comment on the list from their perspective.)
Here's the list, with Amazon links and suggested ages, so you can judge for yourselves: Millicent Min, Girl Genius (9-12), Whales on Stilts (9-12), Blood Red Horse (9-12), The Eagle of the Ninth (teens), Ellen Tebbits (8-10), Duck and Goose (4-8), Clementine (7-10), The Trolls (8-12), Adele & Simon (5-9), and Apples to Oregon. (5-9)
If you look through the list, you will find that all ten books are fiction; boys, as they get out of the primary grades, often prefer nonfiction. There are no books in the list on dinosaurs, trucks, space travel, history (especially military history), sports, or any of the other subjects that fascinate most boys. There are no books in the list that tell a boy how to make things, though most boys are intrigued by such books.
Nine of the books are written by women; boys prefer books written by men. (Science fiction writer Andre Norton, also a children's librarian, chose a male pen name for precisely that reason.) Many of the books have girls as heroines; boys, as least pre-adolescent boys, do not want to read about heroic girls.
I could continue, but I think you can see my point by now. Take a look at the books on the list and see if you agree with me. Are those books that (excluding the one exception) normal boys would even pick up, much less read? And do you have any recommendations for better choices? Just to get things started, I'll mention a book about George Rogers Clark, that I linked to here.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at April 29, 2007
05:23 PM | Email This
why are u wondering & surprised? not exactly the u. of Chgo. "top 100 classics" by Adler--
even kid versions that are available. too non-pc to learn of the wider world.
need to get the victim bias of edu. & the "American/Western guilt thing" intact first, i guess.
i'm REALLY glad she was an inspiration for libraries & books & learning--too many kids playing idiot electronic games and learning nothing about culture & history "the hard way."
however, that's it--park your agenda at the door. books--reading--period--no agenda.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on April 29, 2007 07:07 PMHe has recommended reading list for every age.
I am an avid reader and I read Publishers Weekly (from KCLS) every week. When I was ferrying my son to and from school everyday we would listen to (and discuss) books together. My peeve was/is that it is virtually impossible to find books (especially for boys) that did not celebrate some kind of disfunction.
Bill Bennetts lists took us in some awesome listening directions. PLEASE do your kids a huge favor and check out his book. KCLS owns it. And KCLS owns most of what's on his lists in audio format.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 29, 2007 09:01 PMThe Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on April 29, 2007 11:45 PMD is for Dinosaurs
Boys Will Be Boys
D@%! the Torpedoes, Full Speed Ahead!
Dragon Tales
Good Sports
It's a Guy Thing
So the book appears to have many traditional ideas for boys, even if the Sea Times list emphasizes the untraditional.
In any case, it's ironic that anyone would look to William Bennett, an intolerant, hypocritical, compulsive gambler, for child-rearing advice.
Posted by: Bruce on April 30, 2007 09:24 AMPeople sometimes have flaws in their lives. Bennett has done great work on education. Add to the list, the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy.
Oh, Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame has just completed a 500+ page unauthorized bio of Hillary. He spoke to over 200 sources. It will be out soon and pre-reports are that it doesn't paint her in a favorable light. Since, this is your criticism of Bennett, "an intolerant, hypocritical, compulsive gambler, for child-rearing advice." I don't know if she gambled with anything other than comodity futures. Wonder what your comment will be about Bennett after the book? Is she just another lying secular progressive weasel?
Posted by: WVH on April 30, 2007 09:38 AMSometimes conservatives like Bennett and others fail, but so do It Takes a Village types like Hillary. Do you dismiss her advaice?
From The Sunday TimesApril 29, 2007
Watergate reporter demolishes Hillary's career storySarah Baxter, Washington
Drawing on a trove of private papers from Hillary Clinton's best friend, the legendary Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein is to publish a hard-hitting and intimate portrait of the 2008 presidential candidate, which will reveal a number of "discrepancies" in her official story.
Bernstein, who was played by Dustin Hoffman in the film All the President's Men, has spent eight years researching the unauthorised 640-page biography, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"Bernstein reaches conclusions that stand in opposition to what Senator Clinton has said in the past and has written in the past," said Paul Bogaards, a spokesman for Knopf, which publishes the book on June 19.
With the thoroughness for which he is famous, Bernstein spoke to more than 200 of Clinton's friends, colleagues and adversaries. He stops short of accusing the New York senator of blatantly lying about her past, but has unearthed examples of where she has played fast and loose with the facts about her "personal and political life", according to Knopf.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1719879.ece
So, is Hillary a person who should be held in some regard?
Posted by: WVH on April 30, 2007 09:45 AMBut dealing in commodity futures is an investment strategy, albeit an arguably foolish one. Compulsively losing $8 million in casinos is a severe personal defect and shows Bennett to be a hypocrite. Perhaps Bennett still knows how to raise kids, but he's done nothing to persuade me of that.
I find it humorous that you have apparently decided that "secular progressive" is not enough of an epithet for Hillary (in fact, the first word is wrong and the second is meaningless), so you have prepended "lying" and appended "weasel". I'm starting to think you're not fond of her.
Posted by: Bruce on April 30, 2007 10:17 AM1. Bennett served as United States Secretary of Education from 1985 to 1988. So, he has some familarity with the topic. He graduated from Williams College and went on to get a PhD from the University of Texas at Austin in Political Philosophy. He also has a law degree from Harvard Law School.
He may be conservative, but he is no dummie. Above info from Wikipedia
2. Hillary is a lying secular progressive weasel. Her outrage and demand that Imus be fired took a back seat to raking in $800,000 from secular progresive hip hop thugs and weasels. If she gives the money back, I might have a tiny bit of respect for her. Can't wait for the Bernstein book. Bet David Geffen can't wait either.
Posted by: WVH on April 30, 2007 10:34 AMThe Piper
Hello Piper
That brings back memories! I loved that book when I was a boy, I checked it out of the school library quite a few times in both 5th and 6th grades. I'm glad you mentioned it, now that I remember that book I'm going to try to get a hold of a copy for my son.
Posted by: ba on May 1, 2007 01:54 PMThis may be shocking, but there are actual differences between men and women. As it turns out, men and women have different reproductive organs and more subtle differences in their physiological makeup. In addition, even more subtle differences exist in the brain. Two people do not think exactly alike and neither do men and women as collective groups.
We must be aware of these differences, not for the purpose of emphasizing them, but for the simple fact that we mustn't shy away from factual information because we might deem it unpleasant.
It is for this reason that the original poster is correct in his assertion. There are differences between men and women and we must treat these differences appropriately. To pretend that differences do not exist, or that one must be emphasized over the other, is fantasy and perhaps sexist in and of itself.
Posted by: MMM'Billy on May 2, 2007 06:55 PM