I am reading Laying Down the Rails and have a question about where it talks about neatness on page 38. (I have not read any of the original Charlotte Mason works yet.) What does “vulgar”mean in her language? I feel I have gotten better about detemining what books are in poor taste, but am not sure about toys. I really just don’t like many electronic toys, but that’s just personal annoyance for the most part. I am trying really hard to do some simplifing in my life, including books and toys. Would a vulgar or “poor taste” toy include something like junk that comes in a Happy Meal? I already limit the toys we keep around the house (by American standards, for better or worse), but I am just curious about this so any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks!
Back when that was written, “vulgar” meant common or without higher purpose or motives. In the context of toys it would be those that don’t spur the imagination, learning, or skill.
Sometimes the same toy can be have a totally different use depending on the child who posses it. We once camped next to a family whose child had several toys and action figures from a movie. All the child could do in play was re-enact scenes and lines from that movie. Our children, who had not seen the movie, saw the same toys and let their imaginations go into all sorts of different directions. They came back frustrated because the first child wouldn’t have anything to do with deviating from the “script”.
Thanks so much! I am usually pretty good about searching through old posts to answer my questions, but just plain old forgot this time. Thanks for linking me to that discussion, it was exactly what I was looking for. 🙂
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
The topic ‘Laying Down the Rails: What would be a "vulgar…toy"?’ is closed to new replies.