... is the one you read to a child. So I lied, I haven't actually quit reading for the summer. I've been reading a book called The Read-Aloud Handbook. I think it should be required reading for all new parents or expectant couples or teachers. The most important thing I've learned so far from this book (I'm only on page 34, but I had to share my thoughts with you in case I don't finish the book before school starts) is that the difference between high achievers and middle level students is their love of reading. Especially with the way schools are "supposed" to teach reading (through phoenetics... thank you No Child Left Behind for yet another dumb idea), children are being turned off to reading. So it's important for parents to read to children from a very early age (the author suggests beginning to read to your child in the last trimester of your pregnancy so that the baby already associates certain books with comfort) so that the child associates reading with pleasure and not with worksheets, etc.
This book has me thinking about changing my Master's degree from Youth Librarianship (for a public library) to School Librarianship. Parents need to encourage their children's teachers (throughout all of elementary school) to read out-loud to their children (with no reading quizzes at the end) and have SSR (Sustained Silent Reading). One principal in an at-risk Boston elementary school turned his school's reputation and testing scores around in two years by having 10 minutes of read aloud time each morning and 10 minutes of SSR each afternoon. If 20 minutes a day can make that much of a difference once the child is already in school, imagine what a difference it could make if you start reading to your child from infancy.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English Dictionary by Simon Winchester
Here it is folks. The last of Becca's summer reading. With only a week left until school starts I've decided that I'm don't want to get immersed in a book that I can't finish before school starts and the reading piles up. But this book was a great way to end my summer reading and get geared up for school. The title of the book pretty much sums it up. One of the biggest contributors to the OED (which is commonly considered to be THE authority on all matters of english definitions) lived in an insane asylum the entire time that he was helping to define words and find illustrative quotes.
I really don't know what else to say about this book. It was a good read for a non-fiction book, but since it is a true story it doesn't have quite the drive that fiction does. It's harder to bring in symbols and foreshadowing and all those things that make fiction really fun. There's less "coming full circle." That's not to say that I don't recommend it. It was a great book. You just need to know that it's not fiction and therefore not going to be quite as fun.
I really don't know what else to say about this book. It was a good read for a non-fiction book, but since it is a true story it doesn't have quite the drive that fiction does. It's harder to bring in symbols and foreshadowing and all those things that make fiction really fun. There's less "coming full circle." That's not to say that I don't recommend it. It was a great book. You just need to know that it's not fiction and therefore not going to be quite as fun.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver
Overpowering. That's the only word I can think of that describes this book. It knocks you down with it's perspectives and descriptions of life. I don't know how an American could write so convincingly about life in a completely different culture. It's one of those books that makes you want to find some poor child and just hug him and give him everything he needs.
What I really took from this book is how much luxury I have in my life. Sure I'm a "struggling" college student, but I have never looked at bare cupboards and wondered whether or not I'd be able to buy food. I've never had to subsist on ramen noodles and bread for a month because I don't have money for anything else. Sure I can't buy everything I would like, but I'm definitely not starving or suffering from malnutrition.
I think the reason that the talk of food struck me is that I've really been focusing on that lately. I've been trying to read a lot of articles on nutrition and how eat healthy on a college budget. I'm trying to start "dieting" in a way that I can just get myself into good, healthy habits for life. I've read so many articles it's ridiculous. Everyone has a different opinion about the best way to eat, but there are a few things I've found.
1) Get as natural as you can. Whole grains are great. Stay away from cans and boxes as much as possible.
2)Don't limit yourself. Don't completely cut out sweets or salty foods, just find healthy ways to eat them. Try all sorts of different things from the produce section to see what you like.
3) Don't force yourself to eat something you don't like. I heard someone say that you should try all the foods that you don't like at least once a year because your tastebuds may change, but if you've tried it recently and you don't like it, then don't force yourself to eat it. My prime example... salads. I like salads when other people prepare them, but if I buy stuff to make salads then it'll just rot because I don't like them enough to make them. I will however, eat just about any kind of cooked vegetable.
4) Beans are a great substitute for meat in most cases. I'm contemplating buying lots of beans and seeing if I really can cut meat out of my life (or at least cut down on how much I eat it). I'm not necessarily becoming a vegetarian, because I'll still eat meat, but beans are a lot cheaper than meat and just as good of a source of protein without all the fat and with a lot more fiber.
Okay, that's a long tangent, but it's what I've been thinking about all day... actually all week.
What I really took from this book is how much luxury I have in my life. Sure I'm a "struggling" college student, but I have never looked at bare cupboards and wondered whether or not I'd be able to buy food. I've never had to subsist on ramen noodles and bread for a month because I don't have money for anything else. Sure I can't buy everything I would like, but I'm definitely not starving or suffering from malnutrition.
I think the reason that the talk of food struck me is that I've really been focusing on that lately. I've been trying to read a lot of articles on nutrition and how eat healthy on a college budget. I'm trying to start "dieting" in a way that I can just get myself into good, healthy habits for life. I've read so many articles it's ridiculous. Everyone has a different opinion about the best way to eat, but there are a few things I've found.
1) Get as natural as you can. Whole grains are great. Stay away from cans and boxes as much as possible.
2)Don't limit yourself. Don't completely cut out sweets or salty foods, just find healthy ways to eat them. Try all sorts of different things from the produce section to see what you like.
3) Don't force yourself to eat something you don't like. I heard someone say that you should try all the foods that you don't like at least once a year because your tastebuds may change, but if you've tried it recently and you don't like it, then don't force yourself to eat it. My prime example... salads. I like salads when other people prepare them, but if I buy stuff to make salads then it'll just rot because I don't like them enough to make them. I will however, eat just about any kind of cooked vegetable.
4) Beans are a great substitute for meat in most cases. I'm contemplating buying lots of beans and seeing if I really can cut meat out of my life (or at least cut down on how much I eat it). I'm not necessarily becoming a vegetarian, because I'll still eat meat, but beans are a lot cheaper than meat and just as good of a source of protein without all the fat and with a lot more fiber.
Okay, that's a long tangent, but it's what I've been thinking about all day... actually all week.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
The Kite Runner
On a random note before I say anything else I just have to pause to notice that a lot of books start with the word "The." When I type in the title on my post it brings up a list of all other titles that start with the same thing and there's a lot that start with "the." I could probably write a whole post on what that signifies for the book and the sybolism between the title of a book and the content of the book, but I'll save that for a time when I haven't read any good books.
This book absolutely rocked. I can understand why it was an international best seller. The author created such a believable anti-hero that I had a hard time believing that he wasn't projecting himself onto his character. His character was flawed enough to have major need of redemption but he also had so much goodness in him that I was rooting for him all along. However, as much as I loved the character and thought that he was believable, there were some plot twists that I felt made this book a definite work of fiction. There were too many coincidences (although since I'm not a Middle Eastern political refugee I don't really have a sense of what kind of events happen in their lives). These coincidences however did create some beautiful symbolism in his life and made the book come full circle.
I almost don't want to discuss it too much because it is such an amazing book that I want everyone to be intrigued and read it for themselves. But I have to say that the thing that amazed me about this book is that how although it is about someone who lives a completely different life from me, it made me think quite a bit about who I am and why I act the way I do. While the protagonist was exploring his character flaws I explored myself to see if I would act the same way as him and how I felt about the way he acted. Would I have done the same thing in his shoes? That's what make me think that this protagonist was so well developed... I didn't see myself in him, but he made me think about who I was.
This book absolutely rocked. I can understand why it was an international best seller. The author created such a believable anti-hero that I had a hard time believing that he wasn't projecting himself onto his character. His character was flawed enough to have major need of redemption but he also had so much goodness in him that I was rooting for him all along. However, as much as I loved the character and thought that he was believable, there were some plot twists that I felt made this book a definite work of fiction. There were too many coincidences (although since I'm not a Middle Eastern political refugee I don't really have a sense of what kind of events happen in their lives). These coincidences however did create some beautiful symbolism in his life and made the book come full circle.
I almost don't want to discuss it too much because it is such an amazing book that I want everyone to be intrigued and read it for themselves. But I have to say that the thing that amazed me about this book is that how although it is about someone who lives a completely different life from me, it made me think quite a bit about who I am and why I act the way I do. While the protagonist was exploring his character flaws I explored myself to see if I would act the same way as him and how I felt about the way he acted. Would I have done the same thing in his shoes? That's what make me think that this protagonist was so well developed... I didn't see myself in him, but he made me think about who I was.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
The Giver
So my boyfriend went back to EFY and I started reading again. The summer is almost at an end and I barely made a dent in my reading list (which is currently 86 books long, but I haven't updated it recently); however, Andy does still have a couple summer trips so maybe I'll make a little bit more of a dent in it. We'll see. Once school starts though... this blog is definitely turning into a place for me to vent about books I'm reading in class (if only you could've experienced Wuthering Heights with me) and work out some ideas for papers. But back on track...
I read The Giver for the first time in my life last week. It brought me back to the question I partially addressed in my research paper on the His Dark Materials trilogy. Why do authors choose children's literature as a forum for adult ideas? I found a great quote while I was doing my research that said that children's literature is just adult literature with smaller words and more explanations (or something like that). My big question is how much do these children understand? I remember reading books like His Dark Materials as a child (before all the hype caused by the movies) and I loved them! I still love them! I never thought about the storyline as anything that had application to my life, I just read them to read them. When I read them again this last semester for my research project I started noticing all the little things that I had missed when I read them as a child... mostly allusions to other great works of literature. Anyways... back to the book at hand.
I found The Giver to be an interesting look at the only feasible way to have people be happy in such a utilarian society... take away their ability to think past the parameters set by the authorities. It's almost a 1984 for children. Take away someone's ability to give a name to a feeling and they'll stop feeling it (or at least acting on that feeling). By taking away people's ability to see color the authorities made it so that people couldn't discriminate based on those things. A red shirt wouldn't be better than a blue shirt... they were both just shirts. By taking away memories of the past and putting them all on one person, the general populace could have no word for oppression or tyrany because they knew of no other form of living.
But why is this a children's book? Why is it touted as one of the best children's books? Why is it that we as a society constantly hand our children these books that many adults may not understand the implications of? I guess that's the question that lies at the bottom of every other question I have about literature. What makes something adult literature vs. children or young adult? Obviously there are some thing such as blatant sexuality that set something off at adult literature, but there's always the grey area between childrens and young adult and young adult and adult. I guess if I could pick a question that summarizes my scholastic endevours and my contribution to the academic world that would be it. The question of what designates something as childrens/young adult/adult literature.
I read The Giver for the first time in my life last week. It brought me back to the question I partially addressed in my research paper on the His Dark Materials trilogy. Why do authors choose children's literature as a forum for adult ideas? I found a great quote while I was doing my research that said that children's literature is just adult literature with smaller words and more explanations (or something like that). My big question is how much do these children understand? I remember reading books like His Dark Materials as a child (before all the hype caused by the movies) and I loved them! I still love them! I never thought about the storyline as anything that had application to my life, I just read them to read them. When I read them again this last semester for my research project I started noticing all the little things that I had missed when I read them as a child... mostly allusions to other great works of literature. Anyways... back to the book at hand.
I found The Giver to be an interesting look at the only feasible way to have people be happy in such a utilarian society... take away their ability to think past the parameters set by the authorities. It's almost a 1984 for children. Take away someone's ability to give a name to a feeling and they'll stop feeling it (or at least acting on that feeling). By taking away people's ability to see color the authorities made it so that people couldn't discriminate based on those things. A red shirt wouldn't be better than a blue shirt... they were both just shirts. By taking away memories of the past and putting them all on one person, the general populace could have no word for oppression or tyrany because they knew of no other form of living.
But why is this a children's book? Why is it touted as one of the best children's books? Why is it that we as a society constantly hand our children these books that many adults may not understand the implications of? I guess that's the question that lies at the bottom of every other question I have about literature. What makes something adult literature vs. children or young adult? Obviously there are some thing such as blatant sexuality that set something off at adult literature, but there's always the grey area between childrens and young adult and young adult and adult. I guess if I could pick a question that summarizes my scholastic endevours and my contribution to the academic world that would be it. The question of what designates something as childrens/young adult/adult literature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)