Twaddle–do I really know the difference?

This is purely regarding the emphasis placed on medal winning; I keep it in perspective this way:

In modern times, all these medals don’t really matter to me. Examples (not literary):

Those who won the Peace Prize-

Yasser Arafat-Terrorist and anti-semite

Al Gore-won Peace for what? His Global warming drive? How’s that to do anything for Peace?

President Obama-nominated after less than 2 weeks as President; then he won. WHY?

So I use these few among many examples, under a variety of subjects, to illustrate that a Classic is a Classic and keep in mind who actually makes these decisions in the “modern standards of the gov’t. school world”. I don’t think all of these medal systems were in place in the GOlden Age of children’s literature, being the 1800’s. Besides, the standards for what is considered even Literature for children has changed dramatically since WW2. Did you know that the first Caldecott was given in 1938 to “Animals of the Bible”? Do you think that would be considered today for one? I don’t. Would Wind in the Willows be written for a child today as it was in 1908? and understood by the modern child at the same age that it was expected to be understood by a child before the age of TV?

Well, I have to run fast, but trust yourself, not the people who give medals, at least in recent years. I have a general standard for Lit. before 1950 is the best, give or take a few (same with toys). Look for art as illustration, not cartoons; more language and less illustration so the child’s mind can breathe and do the work; language using full and complete sentences that doesn’t talk down to the child but is food for the brain, etc.

Maybe I’ll chime in later about this, as I am concerned about this as a general rule; it’s about the next generation being able to  actually think and imagine for themselves.

Rachel

Have you seen our old post on What is Twaddle? It has some great comments.

http://simplycharlottemason.com/2009/09/02/what-is-twaddle/

I have to admit that not every book in our home is nutritious literature. But I’d say we’ve presented our children with a buffet of healthy choices and only a little “candy” in moderation. They have developed their own tastes over the years and now prefer the gourmet dishes.

@easybrizy, I’m not familiar with the book you mentioned but we don’t specifically judge a book for having cartoonish illustrations. Cartoons can be a powerful art form to get a message across. For example, look how skillfully some political cartoonists can make an impact with few words in a very small space. In fact, much can be learned about the attitudes and political climate of history by studying the cartoons of old.

My daughter has a My Little Pony video that would definitely qualify as twaddle. I don’t love it, but then I see her apply thinking and memorization skills to it: In one episode, the ponies work together to make a layered cake, and can tell you which order the layers go in, as well as which pony made which layer. Would it be better to commit something else to memory? Probaby, but she is developing those skills nonetheless.

So, we definitely encourage twaddle-free entertainment, and continue providing her with “nutritious,” worthwhile materials, but we don’t make a mountain out of a molehill. The things that I will fight against her seeing are sexual and violent images and vulgar language. We don’t have any of that in our home, but occasionally while in the home of someone else, those things come on the TV, and I remove my children from the room as quickly as possible. I think it’s good to keep in perspective what is really worth getting worked up about.