|
|
1 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Why this? Over simplifed, Expensive, and Not Needed, April 22, 2006
This is only 64 pages long and is "library bound"; that is to say, tha construction is sturdy enough for childrens' sections of public libraries intended for lending to kiddies, who are just as likely to beat their little siblings or their teddy bears with it as read it without it disintegrating. Twenty six dollars US and one finds multiple offerings on abebooks from English and French booksellers for a comparable price.
However if you are going to produce physical books appropriate for toddlers then the contents should be equally appropriate for toddlers. So the level of understanding of the intended audience ahould be behaviorly exemplary as well. That is where this sort of product falls short on the usefulness scale. Since the level of writing is labled as being for ages 4 to 8, one wonders why the entangled life styles of many celebrities would be considered fit for young children to read about, let alone emulate. The sturdy physical form of books found in children's sections should include age-appropriate content.
This means that the contents shouls be appropriate for young minds. TV in recent years has become coarser in its use of language but that is no reason for kiddies to be encouraged to use the ancient Anglo Saxon terms for various personal activites whixh we all know but onxw were discouraged from using in "polite society". Just lke we did, the kiddies will use those words anyway. :O The content should be of some interest to youngsters. But the tales of celebrity couplings and other activitie must be so bowlderizwd for this age level that there would be nothing pertinent sbout personal life. Daytime TV features pre-school learning in the forenoon and fornication, adultery, and other socially undesirable activties in the after noon!!
In any case, while post-pubescent teens and adults may understand and avidly follow the ins and outs of celebrity couplings, those sorts of activity are hardly to be emulated by children. Fornication, adultery, and mayhem were not covered in "Chidren's Activites" magazine that I read when I was a child. Celbrities' promiscuous life styles are inappropriate for kiddies. On the other hand, consenting adults should do what they like if it is not personally harmful or socially disruptive.
The "family values" ranters do have here a relevant point of no little consequence; many celebrities' private lives are hardly examplary except in a negative way. Not to be emulated. For every long term marriage such as that of Paul Newmn and Joanne Woodward there are dozens of promiscuous players and serial marriagers.
The "Hollywood Life Style" is nothing to be held up as a social model. But the motion picture industry has recently tried to sort out its audiences, and TV has the rather ineffective lableling system. But the latter goes down the tubes when such gruesome and brutal series such as Third Watch, and scary and sexually rampant series originally aired in prime time such as Buffy and Angel are syndicated and strip run during the daylight hours when the kids are home from scchool. Movies and TV are full of tales of the high life and low life. Nothing new; from the days of Fatty Arbuckle through Errol Flynn (Who titled his memoirs "My Wicked Wicked Ways")to the presnnt. The coommon catch-pharase oft heard during WW II, "in like Flynn" was a reference to his notorious talents as a swordsman in both senses. ;0.
Not that it is only celebrities in the entertainment business who are now or have been notorious; there are enough corrupt politicians, straying priests and evangelists, crooked businessmen, hopped up and artificially enhances athletes, and brutal gangsters whose storiess could fill books. (The famous Babe Ruth was a well-known drunk and carouser. Just one historical example.)
Snd then there have been famous bi-sexuals, homosexuals, and lesbians both in and out of the closet from olden times to today. Whitman ( the poet for whom nany schools are named) Hoover, Hudson, and many others come to mi
I do not intend to condemn their way of life; I think any non-harmful activity that consnting adults participate in are fine so long as they don't bother anyone else. The nineteenth century saw, "Do what you want, just don't do it in the street and scare the horses!" is still relevent. But we should not set the doers up as examples for living, and especially to pre-adolescents who have not yet reached he "Age of Reason" as defined by many faiths.
Nor are these comments meant as personal criticicism of clebrities' private activities. I follow the press on actresses, singers and others in publications ranging from Vanity Fair to US. The significant word is private. Who needs to know who does what whan and where with whom?
The paparazzi press is full of irrelevancy.(I stop there; no Weekly World News or Enquirer for me!)) I follow Jennifer's because I enjoy her acting ability in varous film roles, not just Friends. But what social uses have the details of her personal life. And this is not criticism of such trivial but responsible magazines as US. It's coverage is restrained compared with some. I subscrible to Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, EW, snd give a reward for sticking to the professional work for the most part to EW and the new incarnation of TV GUIDE.
Even so, one wonders why some excellent actors get excessively dtailed personal coverage in the "celemags" and some of equat talent don't. For example the adept Reese Witherspoon who leads a stable married life while yet the multi-tletned Ashley Judd in recent years has for the most part sppeared in the fashion press, and is ignored by the paparzzi.
So, the conclusion is that if you are going to publish books in a sturdy form approprate to children's sections then the content should also be appropriate for children. Leave adult subjects to the post-adolescent and adult markets.
|
