The odds that President Elect Obama reads this blog are slim. Slim to none. Okay, they're none. But what if he did?
Well, if he did, first I'd say good luck on that Herculean task awaiting you at the White House: make the economy hang a u-turn on a dime—actually a nickel would be better. Next, I'd tell him that he really should make the Barack Obama Book Club "a thing." It could be huge. Bigger than Oprah (...hey, I didn't mean it that way). I have no doubt that President Obama's Book Club would get people reading again. Wouldn't that be an impressive accomplishment to chalk up in the first 100 days?
Let me back up. I get a daily email newsletter about the publishing business called "PublishersLunch." While scanning it today, I ran across the phrase "Obama Book Club." The bells went off in my head. The bologna fell from my eyes. I screamed "Holy Romano cheese! That could be bigger than Taft!"
Think of the positive influence he'd have on reading in this country if he made this thing "a thing." People are inspired by him. He's cooler than Clinton. He's our first real celebricrat. So if his press secretary announced the Obama Book Club selection on the first of every month, half the dang country would stumble out the door, buy the book, and read it immediately. That book would rule the water cooler roost. Imagine a "book" in that position.
Look, nobody can deny Oprah's Book Club has gotten lots of people reading again. It has, in a big way. But Obama is bigger. Much bigger. As far as I can tell, the Obama Book Club idea started out as a fun campaign strategy to get book clubs formed to read his autobiographies and discuss them. Cool idea. But since I've heard him say on numerous occasions that parents should turn off the TV and the video games, he should encourage them to use that free time to go hit the dang library.
Now here's the selfish part of this post (it always comes back to me somehow...). He's got two young kids, right? So in addition to his monthly grownup selection, he could simultaneously recommend a book for American kids, or two (since his older daughter is more likely reading middle school books). And guess what? Maybe in May he could recommend "Bobby Bramble Loses His Brain," a hilarious and heart-warming tale of a boy whose head cracks open and his brain runs off, written by a great American named Dave Keane, who he'd invite—with his wife and three kids, of course— to the White House to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom—for a WHITE HOUSE SLEEPOVER!.
Hey, a guy's gotta dream.
But Mr. Obama, if you read this, seriously, I promise to make the pancakes in the morning.
And if not, would you consider posting a guest blog on Dave's Book Bits? The offer is on the table.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Getting goosebumps over "Goosebumps"
You cannot deny that there are a few authors whose books have made readers out of children who were non-readers before they encountered their books. Dav Pilkey's "Captain Underpants" books come to mind, as does R.L. Stine's "Goosebumps" series, which I still see kids reading all the time these days.
Both of these series has something in common: many teachers, librarians and parents don't like them. In fact, many books that are great for reluctant readers have this same trait. Many grownups think they're poorly written, are a bad influence, or will rot kids' brains right inside their skulls. Well, too bad! Kids love 'em because they're fun! Reading can and should be fun, believe it or not. And kids tend to like them for reasons tall people don't: they're goofy, silly, disgusting, gross, rude, milk-out-your-nose funny, sleep-with-the-light-on spooky and just plain childish...which is the why they're so DANG FUN TO READ!
Remember, those who fall in love with reading Goosebumps, Captain Underpants and—dare I say it?—Joe Sherlock: Kid Detective will not always necessarily read those types of books. They graduate and move on to bigger and "brighter" books, books that are more challenging, literate and "appropriate." Maybe. The point is that we need to get kids to consider books as essential, as viable forms of entertainment, as portals to engaging worlds that their game system just can't replicate.
So, by God, let them read, for reading at a young age is GOOD—and don't be such a stick in the book.
And if you'd like to know more about the 300-million-copies-sold-and-still-counting "Goosebumps" series and the man responsible for it, listen to this cool report by Lynn Neary of NPR radio.
Both of these series has something in common: many teachers, librarians and parents don't like them. In fact, many books that are great for reluctant readers have this same trait. Many grownups think they're poorly written, are a bad influence, or will rot kids' brains right inside their skulls. Well, too bad! Kids love 'em because they're fun! Reading can and should be fun, believe it or not. And kids tend to like them for reasons tall people don't: they're goofy, silly, disgusting, gross, rude, milk-out-your-nose funny, sleep-with-the-light-on spooky and just plain childish...which is the why they're so DANG FUN TO READ!
Remember, those who fall in love with reading Goosebumps, Captain Underpants and—dare I say it?—Joe Sherlock: Kid Detective will not always necessarily read those types of books. They graduate and move on to bigger and "brighter" books, books that are more challenging, literate and "appropriate." Maybe. The point is that we need to get kids to consider books as essential, as viable forms of entertainment, as portals to engaging worlds that their game system just can't replicate.
So, by God, let them read, for reading at a young age is GOOD—and don't be such a stick in the book.
And if you'd like to know more about the 300-million-copies-sold-and-still-counting "Goosebumps" series and the man responsible for it, listen to this cool report by Lynn Neary of NPR radio.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Should We Do More to Celebrate Reading, Books and Authors?
There are fewer and fewer reviews of books in magazines and newspapers. In fact, on many newspaper websites, if you click on the navigation button marked "Entertainment" there is no subsequent section for "books." Oh, sure, there are reviews of music, movies, TV shows, restaurants and gadgets, but you often can't find anything about good ol' books. I'm afraid that throughout the popular culture books have slipped into an unseemly "also ran" category.
In relation to this decline, I've been thinking about books, authors and celebrities. This country has a few celebrity authors. A few. We could really use more. Perhaps there are so few because authors tend to be bookish, quiet types who spend their days with their noses in either a book or a keyboard—and they have that look about them. But not all authors. Some are sharp dressers, articulate, interesting. And authors used to be considered celebrities in this country, even when I was a kid I remember authors appearing on daytime talk shows and on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. But do enough people care about books for the media to pay attention to authors? I don't think the media thinks so.
Publishers have figured out that it's easier to pluck a celebrity off the pages of People magazine and have them pen a book, than to turn an author into a celebrity—after all, the hard part about becoming famous has already been done! Anybody read Pamela Anderson's latest novel? Sadly, the book itself has become an afterthought, the media attention is what's really important. Rightly or wrongly, the technique works and publishers, after all, are in the business of moving books, and if celebrities move books, they're good for business. We live in a celebrity culture, not a book culture.
At one of my book signings, an earnest woman told me she LOVED children's books. She then proceeded to tell me without a hint of irony that she had "all of Madonna's books." Good for her.
But there are things that work to bring attention to books. These things should be studied carefully, because they make books relevant again. Oprah's Book Club is a force for literacy, no argument there. Many women belong to social book clubs, which I'm sure account for millions of book sales a year. Movies based on books also help spur interest in the original source material. And things like the National Book Festival held every year in Washington, D.C. are great ways to celebrate books and make authors celebrities once again.
The point is, there are things that can be done to champion books and reading in the media and in the culture at large. Maybe we just need a task force to study these issues and work up a list of proposals, initiatives and plans. Then the question becomes: what celebrity can we get to head up such a committee?
In relation to this decline, I've been thinking about books, authors and celebrities. This country has a few celebrity authors. A few. We could really use more. Perhaps there are so few because authors tend to be bookish, quiet types who spend their days with their noses in either a book or a keyboard—and they have that look about them. But not all authors. Some are sharp dressers, articulate, interesting. And authors used to be considered celebrities in this country, even when I was a kid I remember authors appearing on daytime talk shows and on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. But do enough people care about books for the media to pay attention to authors? I don't think the media thinks so.
Publishers have figured out that it's easier to pluck a celebrity off the pages of People magazine and have them pen a book, than to turn an author into a celebrity—after all, the hard part about becoming famous has already been done! Anybody read Pamela Anderson's latest novel? Sadly, the book itself has become an afterthought, the media attention is what's really important. Rightly or wrongly, the technique works and publishers, after all, are in the business of moving books, and if celebrities move books, they're good for business. We live in a celebrity culture, not a book culture.
At one of my book signings, an earnest woman told me she LOVED children's books. She then proceeded to tell me without a hint of irony that she had "all of Madonna's books." Good for her.
But there are things that work to bring attention to books. These things should be studied carefully, because they make books relevant again. Oprah's Book Club is a force for literacy, no argument there. Many women belong to social book clubs, which I'm sure account for millions of book sales a year. Movies based on books also help spur interest in the original source material. And things like the National Book Festival held every year in Washington, D.C. are great ways to celebrate books and make authors celebrities once again.
The point is, there are things that can be done to champion books and reading in the media and in the culture at large. Maybe we just need a task force to study these issues and work up a list of proposals, initiatives and plans. Then the question becomes: what celebrity can we get to head up such a committee?
Monday, September 1, 2008
Freakonomics and Reading Incentives
What incentive do kids have to read books?
Seriously.
Why read a book these days when you can watch a just-downloaded movie on your iPod? Or fire up a game of Super Monkey Ball on your iPhone? Or plop down on the LA-Z-Boy and watch the latest installment of "Dancing with the Stars?"
How do you get kids to pass up these easier, more enticing, and less mind-taxing options?
I just finished Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. The authors explain that "economics is, at root, the study of incentives" and that "the typical economist believes the world has not yet invented a problem that he cannot fix if given a free hand to design the proper incentive scheme."
As my mind is want to do, I start thinking about all this economics/incentive stuff and how it relates to getting kids to read more. The authors deftly explain that incentives come in three types: economic, moral, and social. Turn the knobs on these three types of incentives, they argue, and the economist believes that he can find the right combination to make folks do just about anything.
So how about kids and reading? Hmmmm.
Economic incentives might work: If Tiffany reads three books she gets $30, or $300, or $3,000. That could get expensive, but you could probably reach a number where Tiffany simply couldn't resist, at least until she got sufficiently rich on your unwise and costly incentive program.
Moral incentives might work: Little Kevin might read if society as a whole looked down upon kids who eschewed the book and chewed on the idiot box. What if a family felt shamed by a child who never cracked open a book? But moral incentives don't seem possible in this case, especially when the society as a whole prefers to collectively drool at the feet of "Deal of No Deal." Just not gonna happen.
Social pressure would work: This is the one knob I would suggest turning. Right now, kids who read a lot are made fun of, are teased, or called book geeks/nerds/pinheads, etc. That knob would have to be cranked back 180 degrees the other way. To me, this seems do-able. I'm not exactly sure how, but if kids by and large treated things like the latest Percy Jackson book as the must-have accessory for the Fall Season, books would be back in favor. But what's the plan? How do you make that happen? I haven't seen the show "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" but that might be a place to start—sadly, it's another ding-dang TV show!
I'll think on it. Let me know if you come up with anything—of course not until after "Deal or No Deal."
Seriously.
Why read a book these days when you can watch a just-downloaded movie on your iPod? Or fire up a game of Super Monkey Ball on your iPhone? Or plop down on the LA-Z-Boy and watch the latest installment of "Dancing with the Stars?"
How do you get kids to pass up these easier, more enticing, and less mind-taxing options?
I just finished Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. The authors explain that "economics is, at root, the study of incentives" and that "the typical economist believes the world has not yet invented a problem that he cannot fix if given a free hand to design the proper incentive scheme."
As my mind is want to do, I start thinking about all this economics/incentive stuff and how it relates to getting kids to read more. The authors deftly explain that incentives come in three types: economic, moral, and social. Turn the knobs on these three types of incentives, they argue, and the economist believes that he can find the right combination to make folks do just about anything.
So how about kids and reading? Hmmmm.
Economic incentives might work: If Tiffany reads three books she gets $30, or $300, or $3,000. That could get expensive, but you could probably reach a number where Tiffany simply couldn't resist, at least until she got sufficiently rich on your unwise and costly incentive program.
Moral incentives might work: Little Kevin might read if society as a whole looked down upon kids who eschewed the book and chewed on the idiot box. What if a family felt shamed by a child who never cracked open a book? But moral incentives don't seem possible in this case, especially when the society as a whole prefers to collectively drool at the feet of "Deal of No Deal." Just not gonna happen.
Social pressure would work: This is the one knob I would suggest turning. Right now, kids who read a lot are made fun of, are teased, or called book geeks/nerds/pinheads, etc. That knob would have to be cranked back 180 degrees the other way. To me, this seems do-able. I'm not exactly sure how, but if kids by and large treated things like the latest Percy Jackson book as the must-have accessory for the Fall Season, books would be back in favor. But what's the plan? How do you make that happen? I haven't seen the show "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" but that might be a place to start—sadly, it's another ding-dang TV show!
I'll think on it. Let me know if you come up with anything—of course not until after "Deal or No Deal."
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Why everyone hates "required summer reading"
Today is our last day of summer. The kids start school tomorrow. Whew! It was a lovely summer, to be sure, but as of late the hot topic of conversation on the normally upbeat BBQ circuit is that "stupid, cursed book for required summer reading." All the hair pulling, snarling, and gnashing of teeth has caught my attention...and got me thinking.
Even for my older daughter (who read about 25 books this summer—an avid reader to be sure), it's torture. She is like a horseless stagecoach mired in cold oatmeal when it comes to the required summer reading book and project. Honestly, I think she'd rather move to a new town, assume a new identity, and just read "the books she wants to read."
Why is summer reading required when everyone I've ever met despises the concept? Let's face it, everyone hates required summer reading. Everybody. (If you know someone who likes it, please point them out to me, and I'll assign them a book that they don't want to read for the next time they go on vacation!)
Who invented this idea? Who decided that it was a good idea for school to spoil that sanctity and serenity of summer vacation? After all, what is the ultimate goal of this cruel and unusual punishment? Does it actually achieve anything? Yes? Than show me the study that shows that it is really useful. Where's the research? Where's the proof? Where's the beef?
Teachers have told us that if they do not assign a book and project during the summer, most kids will not read a book at all. And what, is the required summer reading book supposed to engender some kind of love of literature? Ha! Or is it supposed to keep their reading skills sharp? Ha! In fact, studies I've seen show that reading one book over the summer does nothing in terms of maintaining reading skills.
Often "required summer reading" consists of just one book, sometimes picked from a list of 5 or 6 age-appropriate titles that the teacher has deemed worthy, instructive in some way, and certainly "good literature." Then why does everyone put it off until the last moment, under punishment of no texting/email/internet/video games/TV/friends/food/oxygen—whatever the threat required may be to get Jimmy or Jilly to read that godforsaken tome?
Hey, why don't we just assign a book? Any book. Of the child's chosing! Some kids like humor books. Others like biographies about people that interest them. Others would like to read about American Civil War battles. But these kinds of books are usually not offered. This change would at least make the practice less torturous. I mean, c'mon, hasn't anyone ever thrust a book at you and said "you gotta read this," but you didn't because it just didn't capture your interest? That's "required summer reading" in a nutshell.
I think the practice just builds up resentment in kids for books. The ultimate goal may be a worthy one, but in practice it's a big, fat backfire. A dud. A failure that needs to be put to rest or overhauled in some way.
So I'll go on record: Required summer reading is not only ineffective, it's worthless, resented, irritating, and an invasion of privacy into what was once the carefree joy and freedom of SUMMER VACATION.
If we really want kids to read over the summer vacation, we can come up with something better. No?
Even for my older daughter (who read about 25 books this summer—an avid reader to be sure), it's torture. She is like a horseless stagecoach mired in cold oatmeal when it comes to the required summer reading book and project. Honestly, I think she'd rather move to a new town, assume a new identity, and just read "the books she wants to read."
Why is summer reading required when everyone I've ever met despises the concept? Let's face it, everyone hates required summer reading. Everybody. (If you know someone who likes it, please point them out to me, and I'll assign them a book that they don't want to read for the next time they go on vacation!)
Who invented this idea? Who decided that it was a good idea for school to spoil that sanctity and serenity of summer vacation? After all, what is the ultimate goal of this cruel and unusual punishment? Does it actually achieve anything? Yes? Than show me the study that shows that it is really useful. Where's the research? Where's the proof? Where's the beef?
Teachers have told us that if they do not assign a book and project during the summer, most kids will not read a book at all. And what, is the required summer reading book supposed to engender some kind of love of literature? Ha! Or is it supposed to keep their reading skills sharp? Ha! In fact, studies I've seen show that reading one book over the summer does nothing in terms of maintaining reading skills.
Often "required summer reading" consists of just one book, sometimes picked from a list of 5 or 6 age-appropriate titles that the teacher has deemed worthy, instructive in some way, and certainly "good literature." Then why does everyone put it off until the last moment, under punishment of no texting/email/internet/video games/TV/friends/food/oxygen—whatever the threat required may be to get Jimmy or Jilly to read that godforsaken tome?
Hey, why don't we just assign a book? Any book. Of the child's chosing! Some kids like humor books. Others like biographies about people that interest them. Others would like to read about American Civil War battles. But these kinds of books are usually not offered. This change would at least make the practice less torturous. I mean, c'mon, hasn't anyone ever thrust a book at you and said "you gotta read this," but you didn't because it just didn't capture your interest? That's "required summer reading" in a nutshell.
I think the practice just builds up resentment in kids for books. The ultimate goal may be a worthy one, but in practice it's a big, fat backfire. A dud. A failure that needs to be put to rest or overhauled in some way.
So I'll go on record: Required summer reading is not only ineffective, it's worthless, resented, irritating, and an invasion of privacy into what was once the carefree joy and freedom of SUMMER VACATION.
If we really want kids to read over the summer vacation, we can come up with something better. No?
Friday, July 11, 2008
Fighting Summer Reading Loss
I was asking one of my daughter's friends the other night how many books she had read so far this summer. "None," she stated simply, as if this were the only logical course of action after a stressful, intense, homework-packed school year.
You can't really blame her.
But that got me to thinking about something that's often called summer reading loss. Basically, it's like kids' brains melt a bit over the hot summer months when they don't read. You see, by not reading books over the summer a child's reading ability and achievement actually goes backwards. It regresses. I've seen figures that say reading achievement typically declines on average by three months during the hot, lazy months of June, July and August if kids don't read. Most troubling, research indicates that summer reading loss hits lower income, at-risk kids the most, and the effects are cumulative. And the kids most impacted are those students in K-3rd, but summer reading loss can rob kids of critical reading progress all the way through middle school.
So what to be done about it? First, read this good article titled "Bridging the Summer Reading Gap," written by Anne McGill-Franzen and Richard Allington. Next, dig into the research about summer reading programs by starting with this excellent and informative research summary. Then read this primer on the issue from RIF's website. Check out those three things and you'll know more about this issue than 99% of people.
Here a few key tips I gleaned while going through all this information:
• You don't have to read A LOT of books: Just five or six books can maintain reading levels over the summer.
• Do not push books on kids that are too tough: Summer reading should be a time to enjoy reading. Struggling through something too difficult defeats the purpose. Kids would rather pick at a scab then machete their way through the complex, confusing and dull.
• Let kids self-select their books: Don't make your son read Little Women or The Red Badge of Courage because they're classics. Let your daughter select books with subjects, themes and styles that interest her. She can read a series about ponies or cave exploring adventurers, while he reads books about dinosaur poop or medieval combat. Just butt out!
• It doesn't matter what they're reading, as long as they're reading: Do not roll your eyes at comic novels. Do not scoff at Captain Underpants. And don't you dare groan when a child approaches waving a Joe Sherlock mystery!
• Sign up kids for summer reading programs at the library and get them there: Kids can't drive. Adults need to get kids to where the books are. Where there are no books, there is no reading.
• Keep track of progress by making a list: Slap a list of completed books onto the fridge with a magnet. Write down each book knocked off. Show the list to EVERYBODY who comes by. Send a copy to Grandma. Bring the list to your knitting group. Or show it to the guys you play golf with. Get involved. Your child's eyes will shine with pride. Trust me. Perhaps you might even slap your own list on that fridge? Have fun. Be creative. Show that it is your #1 Summer Priority and it'll get done.
Happy Summer Reading!
You can't really blame her.
But that got me to thinking about something that's often called summer reading loss. Basically, it's like kids' brains melt a bit over the hot summer months when they don't read. You see, by not reading books over the summer a child's reading ability and achievement actually goes backwards. It regresses. I've seen figures that say reading achievement typically declines on average by three months during the hot, lazy months of June, July and August if kids don't read. Most troubling, research indicates that summer reading loss hits lower income, at-risk kids the most, and the effects are cumulative. And the kids most impacted are those students in K-3rd, but summer reading loss can rob kids of critical reading progress all the way through middle school.
So what to be done about it? First, read this good article titled "Bridging the Summer Reading Gap," written by Anne McGill-Franzen and Richard Allington. Next, dig into the research about summer reading programs by starting with this excellent and informative research summary. Then read this primer on the issue from RIF's website. Check out those three things and you'll know more about this issue than 99% of people.
Here a few key tips I gleaned while going through all this information:
• You don't have to read A LOT of books: Just five or six books can maintain reading levels over the summer.
• Do not push books on kids that are too tough: Summer reading should be a time to enjoy reading. Struggling through something too difficult defeats the purpose. Kids would rather pick at a scab then machete their way through the complex, confusing and dull.
• Let kids self-select their books: Don't make your son read Little Women or The Red Badge of Courage because they're classics. Let your daughter select books with subjects, themes and styles that interest her. She can read a series about ponies or cave exploring adventurers, while he reads books about dinosaur poop or medieval combat. Just butt out!
• It doesn't matter what they're reading, as long as they're reading: Do not roll your eyes at comic novels. Do not scoff at Captain Underpants. And don't you dare groan when a child approaches waving a Joe Sherlock mystery!
• Sign up kids for summer reading programs at the library and get them there: Kids can't drive. Adults need to get kids to where the books are. Where there are no books, there is no reading.
• Keep track of progress by making a list: Slap a list of completed books onto the fridge with a magnet. Write down each book knocked off. Show the list to EVERYBODY who comes by. Send a copy to Grandma. Bring the list to your knitting group. Or show it to the guys you play golf with. Get involved. Your child's eyes will shine with pride. Trust me. Perhaps you might even slap your own list on that fridge? Have fun. Be creative. Show that it is your #1 Summer Priority and it'll get done.
Happy Summer Reading!
Monday, June 30, 2008
Screen Time vs. Make Believe
When I was a kid I spent a lot of time "pretend playing." Of course, we didn't call it that. We called it "cowboys and indians," or "cops and robbers," or "an alien just ate my little brother." The point being: we used our imaginations quite a bit during play.
If you've read this blog before, you know that one of the subjects I like to touch upon (nay, hammer upon!) is how "electronic media" or "screen time" is crowding out "book time." But it also crowds out "pretend time." Do kids spend the same amount of time pretending today as they did in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or even 90s? There must be something different about pretending to be a dusty town's sheriff trying to run off a ornery gunslinger, than playing a video game in which you blast your way through the OK Corral.
I'm a writer. Without my robust imagination, I might have been forced to become a lawyer. Or, a doctor. Or a politician. (I think I just got really snarky right there—and for that I am truly sorry.) But I'm not one of those people in your neighborhood; I make up stories. Will this generation of screen monkeys have the same kind of imaginations as previous generations? Could TVs, cell phones, computers, iPods, video games, hand-held gaming devices and DVD players installed into car headrests be robbing our short ones of a future bolstered by an active, rigorous and productive imagination? It's something worth thinking about—if you still have the imagination to do such mental hijinks.
These questions about pretend play started firing off in my head like a lost cap gun after reading an interesting interview with Susan Linn about her new book "The Case For Make Believe" in the USA Today. You can read it here.
If kids no longer cram bath towels into the necks of their pajamas—for the perfect poor man's cape—and run careening through the house as a superhero with certain incredible but mysterious powers, what will become of us in the long run? Just use your imagination.
If you've read this blog before, you know that one of the subjects I like to touch upon (nay, hammer upon!) is how "electronic media" or "screen time" is crowding out "book time." But it also crowds out "pretend time." Do kids spend the same amount of time pretending today as they did in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or even 90s? There must be something different about pretending to be a dusty town's sheriff trying to run off a ornery gunslinger, than playing a video game in which you blast your way through the OK Corral.
I'm a writer. Without my robust imagination, I might have been forced to become a lawyer. Or, a doctor. Or a politician. (I think I just got really snarky right there—and for that I am truly sorry.) But I'm not one of those people in your neighborhood; I make up stories. Will this generation of screen monkeys have the same kind of imaginations as previous generations? Could TVs, cell phones, computers, iPods, video games, hand-held gaming devices and DVD players installed into car headrests be robbing our short ones of a future bolstered by an active, rigorous and productive imagination? It's something worth thinking about—if you still have the imagination to do such mental hijinks.
These questions about pretend play started firing off in my head like a lost cap gun after reading an interesting interview with Susan Linn about her new book "The Case For Make Believe" in the USA Today. You can read it here.
If kids no longer cram bath towels into the necks of their pajamas—for the perfect poor man's cape—and run careening through the house as a superhero with certain incredible but mysterious powers, what will become of us in the long run? Just use your imagination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)