bookchatter
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c271d/c271d253347b1d093c37efdf9cbdfd3351f63867" alt=""
for instance, there is a mention once or twice that a red shirt will protect one from faeries - like, "of course he was safe b/c of his red shirt" - something like that. but, the red-shirt theory was not previously espoused or explained. it's like a given that you would know this, which you could interpret as sort of cool that the author thinks you'd know this, or you could interpret as negligent editing. the supporting material was cut, but the use of the reference remained. this sort of thing happened a few times and is generally disconcerting.
being sure all material is explained should be held as highly important in a book for kids b/c they aren't going to have the capacity to make the connections. it's unfair b/c they're reading to learn. not that you're going to learn facts of math, geography, history, or the like from a book about faeries, but you're going to learn vocabulary, grammar, storytelling, plot structure, character development -- all that without realizing you're studying those things. you just pick it up because you're reading, and when it's done poorly, you don't learn much.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9bd9b/9bd9b630e32e9e95a682bbe163a00ba97c6ed552" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4d36a/4d36a8ce7a85ca3f06fb5935e47fdede9ba88d8b" alt=""
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home