On 7/30/05, Alex Y. Kwan <litalex@...
> It's a bit difficult to have a conversation when you keep changing
I never changed terminology. Not that I noticed.
Kid histories =! Kid stories =! kid lectures
Any differences in those? excepting the histories bit that´s sound horribly
wrong spelled (aka another of my "let´s create new words!")
Hm, so where is "here"?
Arround "here" is Spain. But I extend it also a little bit to Belgium and
France, because I was in french school from 6 to 10 and my grandpas lives in
Belgium and I passed hollidays with them (and that´s when I read the most to
don´t die from boredrom).
> have alice in Wonderland, as a Kid I found it twisted and disagreable.
> It's a book for adults disguised as a children novel.
But still people gives it to children to read. Probably just because it´s
also a Disney movie so they assume the book is also for kids. I disliked the
movie and the ilustrated shortened stories so I never got near the book
untill a couple of years ago.
> Le Petit Prince also I found very sad.
> Of course.
Not to mention totally wasted on a 6 or 7 years old kid.
> Dickens in general I still find horridly negative and
> > dark and certainly not for kids.
> Well, his protagonists are kids, but whether the novels themselves are
> for kids...
Well, here they pass the (various) movies on children time during hollidays,
as stuff for children. The books and the stories are considered to be for
children. Never said I agreed and rigt now, I can tell you that if I had
kids I won´t give them to my kids, I wouldn´t want them to read things so
disagreable. I didn´t liked reading them when I was small and I wouldn´t
want my own childrens subjected to sad stuff when they can read about things
that fixes on good things. I think a better example a book about 5 kids
going along and working together than one about a kid dying from hunger in a
Same author as _The Little Princess_.
Maybe translated name is different, or maybe it´s just not as well known as
the Little Princess.
No, they were just best friends who aren't compatible. And the girls'
> personalities were appropriate of the age.
I don´t say it was apropiate for thier age or not. Just that I disliked them
all profoundly. I disliked how they behaved as a general rule, it was all
whinning and crying over split milk. I can´t stand people that lives like
victims and I don´t think it´s a good example to read.
It's a classic, just not for children. But the abridged version in on
> the list.
Isn´t abridging an adult book to make it good for childrens kinda stupid
when there are books for children?
> up things to deal with. I read to have a good time. To read about
> > people wasn´t my idea of a good time.
> Some people like reading sad stories. See catharsis.
I don´t know many children that likes getting buckets and buckets of angst
and misery in their books and movies... Wich doesn´t means there aren´t.
I, personally, never liked it so I avoided most of those supposedly
"kids/children books" classics and jumped directly to happier stuff
supposedly directed to young/teenager, plain funny stuff to read that gave
me a good time instead of a head-ache and a major depression.
And that´s what we wre talking about originally. Why we see HP 6 ending
differently. You said it was kinda expected because it was childrens book.
And I answered I always tried to avoid that kind of stories when they gave
them to me as a kid, so I couldn´t tell.
> Reading about people who passed more
> > time crying than trying to stand on their feet wasn´t funny either. Some
> Well, I wouldn't say they don't stand on their feet;
I don´t call crying and crying and crying to stand on your feets. Specially
when it´s like the 3rd or 4th time you´ve done it. Wich... thinking of it,
is something people (mostly women) does IRL... It makes me think that maybe
people read one too many times some books and ended up believeing that was
the way to be. That behaviour was probably very good when women future
included nothing but marrying, having kids and taking care of house, husband
and kids (and better like it because you´re not entlited to independency
EVER). But nowadays you can´t limit your actions to go cry to someone
everytime something doesn´t works as you wanted it to work. You have to work
to make things work. That´s what I considere standing on your feets.
it's the evolution
> of society perception of the 'hero' and social philosophy, etc. There
> are situations that are viewed as inescapable back in, say, Dickens'
If you´re giving a book today you must consider it´s effects today. As a
I´ve got books about supposedly modelic girls, by bourgesic (sorry I don´t
know how that is spelled) closed-minded christian standards. Only that
a) I don´t believe in that punishing God (proof of it is me in this ML)
b) I don´t believe in marrying young and being maintained by your husband.
c) I´m no burgessie and it was clear I´ll have to work to maintain my house.
Those books were totally inapropiate for me. I understand my grandparents
giving that book to my mother and aunt, back then it was appropiate to where
and when they lived and who they were (or should have been if they hadn´t
screwed the inherited bussiness). But I can´t accept it as appropiate for
but of course Americans kept dreaming the American Dream.
That´s another example of misplaced things. Giving books to children about
the American Dream when they live in totally different system is silly. It
makes no more sense than giving books with middle-age standards to nineties
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]