Bird hugs is a story about a bird that was born with a birth defect, wings too long and too heavy to allow it to fly. Our hero gets upset and frustrated when all his contemporaries manage to fly away. But soon our depressed friend meets animals who are upset about one thing or another and finds out that his enormous wings that are useless for flight are nevertheless very useful for hugging, which obviously helps both the hugger and the huggee. Although the illustrations are reasonably nice, I took a dislike to the book. In general I like children books (Dr. Seuss and Harry Potter are notable exceptions), so I tried to analyze my annoyance. The problem with Bird Hugs (and many contemporary books in this genre) is that they are nauseatingly sticky-sweet in their political correctness and their manifest effort to educate and indoctrinate rather then amuse and amaze (Again, Dr. Seuss and Harry Potter are exceptions, this time in the right direction). All the children books I love and re-read either do not educate or indoctrinate at all, or do it in a very circumspect and indirect way. Winnie The Pooh, Wind in the Willows, Alice in Wonderland, Just So Stories, The Jungle Books, Charlotte's Web, The Rose and the Ring, Where the Wild Things Are, etc. etc. Pendelton does not become cloyingly likable, neither does Shir Khan or Kaa. Rabbit is a barely tolerable prig, while Eeyore is an ever-complaining bore, The Duchess and the Red Queen are downright evil, the Walrus and the Carpenter enjoy a goodly dinner of oysters, whereas Max goes to bed without supper, and so on. So let me wallow in the evil clutches of the amazing , beautiful, poetic, wild children books and spare me the proper sanctimonious hugs.