CCBC-Net Archives
Re: A Paucity of Picture Books
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Jane Hertenstein <janeh_at_jpusa.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 10:44:40 -0500
maybe it's time to bring back the Golden Books and have them available at supermarket checkouts
----- Original Message -----
From: sstantoine_at_aol.com To: ccbc-net@lists.wisc.edu Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:37 AM Subject: Re:
A Paucity of Picture Books
I was fascinated to read the NYT article, not because I agreed with its argumentation, but because I have lately found myself doing just what the article described. My children are 3 and 7. We have shelves loaded with picture books--both classics and contemporary--but when my older daughter began reading, I found my book buying habits changing for both children. I thought more about the costs of a new picture book as weighed against its longevity and versatility. Think of all the hours of pleasure we could get out of a collection of Frog and Toad or Zelda and Ivy--what a portable little treasure to cart around on subway rides and to waiting rooms--and look at all the ways it could be used: read alone by big sister, read out loud to both sisters, read out loud by big sister to little sister, etc. Honestly, I'm embarrassed to describe this kind of cost-benefit calculation applied to art and story--ack! But I think it's fair to say that picture books are a bigger commitment of money and shelf space, and therefo re they undergo extra scrutiny before being placed in a shopping bag. Do we REALLY want to read this book again and again? Does the text REALLY measure up to the artwork? Many times yes, many times no. Even the kids know the difference. I remember when I finished reading WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE to my younger daughter for the first time. She was about 2 1/2, and when I finished reading she looked at me with wide eyes and declared, "Now THAT is a really good book." Needless to say, that's one we own!
Sara St. Antoine author/editor Cambridge, MA
Regarding the NY Times article, below is the letter I sent to the NYT in response:
=====
Dear New York Times,
I was puzzled by the article "Picture Books No Longer a Staple for Children" (7 October 2010). While the assertion that parents are prematurely pushing their kids to chapter books may be true in some instances, the more obvious explanation for picture book sales dropping is the current recession. I strongly suspect that picture book circulation in public libraries is far up.
Picture books do offer a wonderful interplay between language and image, and strengthen the neuronal connections in the brain which enable children to extrapolate from context and learn from their environment.
Additionally, the article author should be very careful about precisely what is being said: it appears that the cited discussion on urbanbaby.com asked for books to *read to* a 5-year-old, not what a child should be reading. My children loved having books of a similar complexity read out loud to them at that age. There is a difference between being read to and reading it oneself.
Sincerely Dipesh Navsaria, MPH, MSLIS, MD Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Director, Early Literacy Projects Madison, Wisconsin
=====
I think the author of that article took the standard "Look at these uptight parents" article and related it to a probably-true but-also-somewhat-standard doom-and-gloom scenario from the publishing industry and equated the two together. Sloppy writing!
Peace and Prosperity, Dipesh
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 10:44:40 -0500
maybe it's time to bring back the Golden Books and have them available at supermarket checkouts
----- Original Message -----
From: sstantoine_at_aol.com To: ccbc-net@lists.wisc.edu Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:37 AM Subject: Re:
A Paucity of Picture Books
I was fascinated to read the NYT article, not because I agreed with its argumentation, but because I have lately found myself doing just what the article described. My children are 3 and 7. We have shelves loaded with picture books--both classics and contemporary--but when my older daughter began reading, I found my book buying habits changing for both children. I thought more about the costs of a new picture book as weighed against its longevity and versatility. Think of all the hours of pleasure we could get out of a collection of Frog and Toad or Zelda and Ivy--what a portable little treasure to cart around on subway rides and to waiting rooms--and look at all the ways it could be used: read alone by big sister, read out loud to both sisters, read out loud by big sister to little sister, etc. Honestly, I'm embarrassed to describe this kind of cost-benefit calculation applied to art and story--ack! But I think it's fair to say that picture books are a bigger commitment of money and shelf space, and therefo re they undergo extra scrutiny before being placed in a shopping bag. Do we REALLY want to read this book again and again? Does the text REALLY measure up to the artwork? Many times yes, many times no. Even the kids know the difference. I remember when I finished reading WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE to my younger daughter for the first time. She was about 2 1/2, and when I finished reading she looked at me with wide eyes and declared, "Now THAT is a really good book." Needless to say, that's one we own!
Sara St. Antoine author/editor Cambridge, MA
Regarding the NY Times article, below is the letter I sent to the NYT in response:
=====
Dear New York Times,
I was puzzled by the article "Picture Books No Longer a Staple for Children" (7 October 2010). While the assertion that parents are prematurely pushing their kids to chapter books may be true in some instances, the more obvious explanation for picture book sales dropping is the current recession. I strongly suspect that picture book circulation in public libraries is far up.
Picture books do offer a wonderful interplay between language and image, and strengthen the neuronal connections in the brain which enable children to extrapolate from context and learn from their environment.
Additionally, the article author should be very careful about precisely what is being said: it appears that the cited discussion on urbanbaby.com asked for books to *read to* a 5-year-old, not what a child should be reading. My children loved having books of a similar complexity read out loud to them at that age. There is a difference between being read to and reading it oneself.
Sincerely Dipesh Navsaria, MPH, MSLIS, MD Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Director, Early Literacy Projects Madison, Wisconsin
=====
I think the author of that article took the standard "Look at these uptight parents" article and related it to a probably-true but-also-somewhat-standard doom-and-gloom scenario from the publishing industry and equated the two together. Sloppy writing!
Peace and Prosperity, Dipesh
---Received on Fri 05 Nov 2010 10:44:40 AM CDT
