Sandra Dodd

Sorry if this turns to mush through yahoo's edit-and-remail process, but I'm going to try it.
If it's unreadable, please let me know and I'll repost the most important parts without any formatting.

The questions I'd like to discuss are whether books are "crucial," and about anonymity/misrepresentation, and speaking for one's child.

Just for the philosophical value, I would like to discuss those.

Another side issue is the idea of quoting a small part of something, and expecting people to follow and read the link before saying "ON no it's not!| (which is one of the factors affecting peace and love on this list in general, even though the example below is not from this list, it's from http://justaddlightandstir.blogspot.com )

Sandra

Crippled by books
There was a time when the only way for a kid to get information from outside his home and neighborhood was books. (Think Abraham Lincoln, log cabin in the woods far from centers of learning.) Now books tend to be outdated, and google.com is better for information. If Abraham Lincoln had had full-color DVDs of the sights of other countries, of people speaking in their native accents and languages, and of history, he would have shoved those books aside and watched those videos.

When someone thinks books are the one crucial step to any further learning, then books and school have crippled that person's ability to think expansively, and to see what's unfolding in front of them in the real world.

SandraDodd.com/bookworship
photo by Sandra Dodd, the other day in Texas
Posted by Sandra Dodd at 12:01 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Google Buzz
6 comments:
Tracy said...
Ah, so very true! :)
December 26, 2010 5:20 AM
Spinning Memories said...
..agree. But dont books feed the imagination more than the DVD's , or any other 'visual' source ? I have always found , for example, books more engrossing than movies based on these books...books have always given me 'time' to think over, form opinons, analyse. I would like to think of books are a very powerful medium despite the new age sources...thoughts ?
December 26, 2010 1:57 PM
Sandra Dodd said...
It's okay to disagree, but it's less okay to say "agree" and then disagree.

Be brave! (And read the link before posting disagreement, please. http://sandradodd.com/bookworship )

I see from your profile you're only three.... or I see that you're not being open and honest about who you are. :-) Be brave!
December 26, 2010 4:08 PM
Spinning Memories said...
Well, maybe I should have clarified - I agree with the first part upto "...Now books tend to be outdated, and google.com is better for information." That is why "agree".

What I dont agree with is not considering books as a crucial part, for reasons I mentioned. Though this does not mean I would force my child to read them if he did not enjoy them (not sure if this is what you are suggesting). I would possibly try to make them more interesting. With the amazing amount of variety in books today it should be easy (thankfully my child does love reading)

Also like many other unschooling links of yours which I have loved reading , I have already read about the one you mentioned ..but my main disagreement was in ref to this particular post.

Amongst many things that I might lack "being brave" is probably the least, but something seems to have offended you !

Also sometimes what might sound like 'disagreements are merely doubts, inviting more clarifications. Particularly since I agree so much with what is otherwise written by you.

Assumed that it would be percieved as a question from a learning mom..Somewhat surprised and sad that it was percieved as dishonesty.

Vedaant's mom
(pls trash my comments if they take away value of what you have tried to convey)
December 27, 2010 7:28 AM
Sandra Dodd said...
-=-What I dont agree with is not considering books as a crucial part...-=-

Ah. I never said "crucial." that's your word.
For me, the only crucial part is learning, and there is *not* more learning in reading books than in other input, especially for three year olds. I've been listening to audio books a lot lately. That's not reading. It requires a computer and the internet; I don't own the physical books.


Discussion and disagreement are often where others learn the most (those reading and not involved), but the best place for such things is the Always Learning List at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/ I'll take this discussion there.

As to the bravery I mentioned, when someone clicks on my name, on an internet post, it goes to information about me, which leads to more honest and open information about me. Yours leads to "I am almost 3 yrs old..."
December 27, 2010 9:34 AM
Sandra Dodd said...
Oh doh! I did say "crucial," but it was in saying I didn't think books were the ONE crucial step. Sorry.

"When someone thinks books are the one crucial step to any further learning..."

I don't think any one item or set of item or mode of input is "the one crucial" anything, in unschooling. It takes a great range of choices and freedoms, and when a parent thinks books are *IT* then unschooling is harmed by that. It is made weaker and smaller.
December 27, 2010 10:07 AM




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

k

>>>I don't think any one item or set of item or mode of input is "the one
crucial" anything, in unschooling. It takes a great range of choices and
freedoms, and when a parent thinks books are *IT* then unschooling is harmed
by that. It is made weaker and smaller.<<<

Not to mention (which I'm now about to mention!), thinking books are IT
makes reading smaller. I can understand what's called book porn. Oh gosh
yes! Books are seeeexy. Not kidding. Yum! I can wax enthusiastically on and
on. I like stuff that looks like books whether they are in fact books or
not. Ooooh yeeees. I'd like a computer that looks like a book.

What got me to read the Lord of the Rings trilogy were the Peter Jackson
movies, which I agree are nowhere near the same creature. Movies can lead
to books and vice versa.

~Katherine


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

sheeboo2

----The questions I'd like to discuss are whether books are "crucial," and about anonymity/misrepresentation, and speaking for one's child.----

No, books aren't crucial (at least not at this point in our civilization), but they smell real good and I love holding them in my hands.

Your second question, though, is really interesting to me. There is A LOT bound up there! Especially in regards to unschooling lists like these and all the various forms of blogs unschoolers keep.

My 7yr old dd is aware of my internet time in Yahoo-groups-land. Sometimes I'll read her bits of posts and we'll talk about them. Recently she asked that I clear anything I write about her with her first. When I started our blog I told her I'd never photograph or post anything without her consent.

******

Speaking for one's child and misrepresentation in the blogosphere is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. I started a blog last fall as a practice run for keeping state-required homeschool documentation next year, when it becomes required. The things I chose to post at first were clearly "educational." I made sure to transcribe key parts of conversation (educational-speaking). I was, in essence, deciding what was canonical and what wasn't. I thought (still do) about what dd may be surmising about learning, or at least the documentation of it, based on the events/photos I select for the blog--what am I privileging?

So then what?

Put the issue of having to "prove" education aside and use the blog to keep family and friends in the loop? I'm still not in a comfortable space with my "voice," as "documenter of learning" especially if the audience includes the school district's super intendant.

After following the links in your post, I realize this isn't what brought the above questions to mind, for you. In that example, I found weirdness in appropriating someone else's (who is powerless, really, to "speak"/write for himself) voice, but beauty in the mother's voice when she authentically wrote as herself about her opening awareness. The end of the post about a trip to the Natural History Museum reminded me of the thoughts that swirled in my own mind during my early-awakening to unschooling principles. The cute-sy (yet somehow icky) adult-writing-as-young-child part I'd pass on.

Brie

catfish_friend

On Dec 27, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Sandra Dodd <[email protected]> wrote:

******
>
> The questions I'd like to discuss are whether books are "crucial," and about anonymity/misrepresentation, and speaking for one's child.

******

Books are "crucial" in that they are time capsules, contextualizing the process of learning and passing on information amongst literate people especially pre-internet. They are long-form, verbal ramblings and this kind of communication is not yet easily accessed via Internet (without a Kindle, Nook, etc.).

For the experience of trying to understand a person's perspective outside of one's self in lengthy, verbal, detail and as a snapshot in time, books can be "crucial".

But just as a sonnet is "crucial" to a Shakespearean scholar and not to people in general, I wonder how long books might be "crucial" to the general public now or in future generations!

Peace,
Ceci

Sandra Dodd

-=- I made sure to transcribe key parts of conversation (educational-speaking). I was, in essence, deciding what was canonical and what wasn't. I thought (still do) about what dd may be surmising about learning, or at least the documentation of it, based on the events/photos I select for the blog--what am I privileging?-=-

I don't think putting something in a blog makes it "canonical." It's a representative sample. In the section of my site about typical days, they're a sample of days the mom was inspired to write about. None of those families every could have had another day exactly like that one.

When people post without their real names, it bothers me. Not "without real names," because if I were posting for 20 years as Sandra Dodd and it turned out my name was Shirley Pod, at least I was consistent. But if I had posted as "The Real Unschooling Mom" or something like that, it would be like having a sack on my head. It's not really possible to have a forthright exchange with someone with a sack on her head. You can't see the eyes to judge whether they're being honest. But people can't see my eyes when I write, either.

So what's the difference?

I really am Sandra Dodd. I have been Sandra Gill and Sandra Adams. That's right out there, public record, not hidden by me.

Should everyone else be as "out there" as that? Maybe not. Not everyone wants to be. Some are shy. Some are paranoid.

It doesn't matter in absolute whole-world terms what bothers me or what I prefer. But on this list or in comments on a blog that's clearly mine, it matters more. There is an aspect of being on someone else's property, or in someone else's house. I wouldn't easily welcome someone into my house who had a sack on her head.

There was a woman in our old neighborhood who used to do her yardwork with a sack on her head. I didn't know her, and never knew whether she had a severe sun allergy, or skin cancer, or was deformed or what. Cloth bag, all the way over her head. I might've wanted to know more before I invited her to a party at my house, I guess. But as long as she was in her own yard, what I thought didn't matter. What I thought was that she was in her own yard. :-)

Should I have to ask her before I tell people here "I saw a woman doing yardwork with a sack on her head; saw her repeatedly"? No, because I saw that myself.
My neighbors haven't been yelling and threatening as much as they used to, or at least not outside. Probably because it's winter. Should I need to ask them before I tell others that my neighbors yell insults and threaten each other? The police come. I've called three times over the years, but clearly other neighbors call too. If they said "I don't want you to tell the people on your discussion list that we yell and threaten each other, or that the police come," would that be reasonable?

I don't tell everything my kids do or say. There is judgment and discretion involved, for various reasons. But there are things I tell without hesitation, without asking permission.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Heather

Sandra Dodd wrote:
>
>
>
> I don't think any one item or set of item or mode of input is "the one
> crucial" anything, in unschooling. It takes a great range of choices
> and freedoms, and when a parent thinks books are *IT* then unschooling
> is harmed by that. It is made weaker and smaller.
>
What is crucial in unschooling is decided by the child from day to day.

My now 17 year old son, after quitting school last fall(he was enrolled
for two months out of his whole life) said that people(teachers,
friends) were telling him he should read more books, and wanted to know
if I thought he should be reading more books. I asked him what he
thought, and if he would enjoy reading more books, or benefit from it in
some way. We came to the conclusion, that since he at that point was on
the path to a possible career in music(and still is), that reading a lot
of books might take away from time playing his instrument and listening
to music. Just as an intellectual exercise, really. We both knew he
would read more books only when and if he came across books he wanted to
read (he does, sometimes). His friend who wants to be a writer, and who
reads a lot, has a reason for reading which is based in his love for
reading and writing. My son listens to his Ipod when waiting around,
which is a good use of time for him, for both his plan for life, and his
desire of the moment. Though an outsider looking in may see the reader
as doing something more valid, and the kid "plugged into an electronic
gadget", as wasting his time.

It has occurred to me that the way people look at certain activities is
the same way they look at nutrients. One must consume a certain amount
of vitamin C daily, because it is good for your body. In the same way,
one must read a certain amount each day, or practice an instrument a
certain amount every day, because it is good for your mind. I don't
believe that is a valid way to approach either nutrition or learning -
as if humans are machines, and all input should be quantified and
prescribed.

Heather (in NY)

Sandra Dodd

-=-What is crucial in unschooling is decided by the child from day to day.-=-

I don't think that's true either.
If on any of those days the kid decided to go back to bed, neither the thing he didn't do NOR the going to bed was "crucial."

Crucial means the crux, the point at which two major lines (supports/conduits) cross. The crux is crucial because it's what creates the new structure/object.

"Crucial" isn't a great term for the discussion of unschooling. It suggests that there is a point on which all else hinges (though a crux doesn't "hinge"--that would be too weak and wimpy :-)

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=-My now 17 year old son, after quitting school last fall(he was enrolled
for two months out of his whole life) said that people(teachers,
friends) were telling him he should read more books, and wanted to know
if I thought he should be reading more books.-=-

What kinds of books?

There is not "read more books" that makes any more sense than "watch more TV" or "watch more movies."

More horror? Porn? Documentaries? 1950's Westerns? Mysteries? Biographies? Manga? Classic novels?

"Books" isn't a very narrow field of input. "Read more books" isn't very clear advice.

On the other hand, if someone seems clueless about cultural references, maybe he should read more books, watch more TV and movies, goof around YouTube more, play trivia games, and fill in those gaps in his knowledge of what people need to know to get jokes.
http://sandradodd.com/connections/jokes

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

plaidpanties666

catfish_friend <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Books are "crucial" in that they are time capsules, contextualizing the process of learning and passing on information amongst literate people especially pre-internet.
***********

Coincidentally, we've just been watching a movie called "The Book of Kells" which is an animated story of how that particular legendary illuminated text might have come to be. Morgan has found it fascinating and we've had some interesting discussions about why one book was so vastly important to the people in the story. I dug through my bookcase and pulled out samples of illuminated texts, Celtic artwork, old religious paintings, even some art inspired by the Book of Kells. Today, Mo spent part of the day making drawings of Ed, Edd and Eddy in the style of old paintings of saints.

So from a movie to the history of books and art to drawing with new scented markers - an unschooling day, one in which books certainly played a part, but weren't necessarily the main event.

---Meredith

Sandra Dodd

-=-
Coincidentally, we've just been watching a movie called "The Book of Kells" which is an animated story of how that particular legendary illuminated text might have come to be. Morgan has found it fascinating and we've had some interesting discussions about why one book was so vastly important to the people in the story.-=-

ANY book before commercial printing presses and book sales was worth more than a thousand commercially produced books (or more, depending on the books in question). When a book was hand-made on vellum (not paper), hand scribed, hand painted, bound by hand in a jeweled cover.... that's a book worth worshipping. :-)

A book that's one of 10,000, with an expected waste factor (they'll print some percentage over their promised run, based in part on their confidence in their equipment and workers)... some of those are disposable. Some might turn to profit. Some might be remaindered, later, and sold on sales tables in bookstores just to get rid of them. No one copy of those is "the book." They're copies of the idea of a book.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

otherstar

>>>>The questions I'd like to discuss are whether books are "crucial," and about anonymity/misrepresentation, and speaking for one's child.<<<<

Information is crucial but how that information is obtained depends on the individual. Personal observation, books, the internet, friends and relatives, movies, and magazines are just a few possible sources of information. Making a blanket statement that any one of them are crucial fails to look at the full range of possibilities. When I was getting my master's degree in library science, there were classes all about information sources and information seeking behavior. In order to know which source would be best, it is usually good to get as much insight into the information seeker as possible. Some of the possible questions to consider when helping a patron are: What is the information going to be used for? Entertainment? Personal use? A class? How soon do they need the information? How in depth does the information need to be? Are they looking for a simple fact? Do they want fiction or nonfiction? Do they prefer print or electronic materials? Do they want something that they can take with them or something they can use in the library? Those are just a few of the considerations that were brought up. I think it is relevant to unschooling because it can easily be applied to how to provide interesting stuff for our children. My husband and I are both librarians and we usually keep those questions in mind when strewing for our kids. What are THEIR preferences?

If books were crucial, there wouldn't be the move towards electronic media in many libraries. There is one school library that has moved to eliminate all books in favor of electronic media. For quite a few years, librarians have been discussing the gradual move towards more diversified collections that no longer emphasize books as the be all, end all. There is a huge range of possibilities and trying to claim that one is better than another in all instances misses that. The other day, we got into a discussion of how many teeth a person has. My Gray's Anatomy book was sitting out where it could easily be reached. It took a lot less time to grab that than it did to go google it. With anatomy type questions, we usually try books first because of the tendency for porn to come up on the Internet.

Something else that seems to be overlooked is that books can contain just as much misinformation as the Internet. Evaluating information (whether fiction or nonfiction) is essential. I think this is where anonymity/misrepresentation fit into this discussion. If an author were to misrepresent themselves or remain anonymous, then they lose credibility. Stephen King and other prolific writers build a reputation for themselves. A lot of times others will try to piggy back on their success by claiming to be like them without having any kind of credentials. If somebody is going to comment on a blog and try to piggy back on somebody else, then they need to be completely honest about who they are so that others can evaluate the information for themselves. If I see a comment and follow a link, then I expect to gain a bit of insight into the person so that I know how serious to take what is being said. In most academic circles, there is a big emphasis on peer review. Articles that are reviewed by somebody within the field are held in higher esteem than articles that are written by people outside of the field. On an unschooling list, I am going to pay more attention to somebody that has multiple grown children that have been unschooled. That is not to say that I am going to ignore somebody that hasn't been unschooling for a while, but I will use that piece of information to evaluate what I am reading.

>>>>But dont books feed the imagination more than the DVD's , or any other 'visual' source ? I have always found , for example, books more engrossing than movies based on these books...books have always given me 'time' to think over, form opinons, analyse. I would like to think of books are a very powerful medium despite the new age sources...thoughts ?<<<<

That is a personal preference. Each person has his/her own personal preference. It is not accurate to try to make universal claims based on your own experiences. There are quite a few movies that my husband and I watch over and over just to see if we can spot something else cool in them. Movies have the potential to suck people in just as much as books do. I have cried over many, many movies. I tend not to cry over books as much because I tend to skip over parts that are too upsetting. I feel like I have a lot more control when reading a book because I can skim large chunks to get the gist of things without having to focus on anything that is too upsetting. Books are powerful but so are other sources. I will never forget the time that my husband and I went on a road trip and had one of Dave Barry's books on tape. We listened to the whole book and laughed ourselves silly. I never ever would have sat down to read that book because I have a hard time reading that particular genre. Having somebody else read it and provide sound effects is the only way that I could ever get into it. There are a lot of books that I cannot or will not read because I can't get into them. The movie of it or an audio version are fine. I don't particularly like to read Shakespeare but I love to watch his plays acted out in the theater or on the movie screen.

>>>>Now books tend to be outdated, and google.com is better for information."<<<<

This is not necessarily true. It depends on the type of information that you are seeking and what the purpose is. Google is better for ready reference type information but it does not provide really in depth information. It is a good starting place but it should not be considered a superior information source. It is one source among many. Relying solely on google is just as much a disservice as relying solely on books.

Connie

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=-Relying solely on google is just as much a disservice as relying solely on books. -=-

No one ever recommended relying on any one source or medium. That's the point.

-=- If an author were to misrepresent themselves or remain anonymous, then they lose credibility. Stephen King and other prolific writers build a reputation for themselves. A lot of times others will try to piggy back on their success by claiming to be like them without having any kind of credentials. If somebody is going to comment on a blog and try to piggy back on somebody else, then they need to be completely honest about who they are so that others can evaluate the information for themselves. If I see a comment and follow a link, then I expect to gain a bit of insight into the person so that I know how serious to take what is being said. -=-

I agree.

-=->>>>Now books tend to be outdated, and google.com is better for information."<<<<

This is not necessarily true. -=-

Because the statement was "tend to be," it IS necessarily true. :-)
If someone wants current information, any book, by the time it is printed and mailed to your house will have its own updates, reviews and errata pages on the web.

-=- It depends on the type of information that you are seeking and what the purpose is. Google is better for ready reference type information but it does not provide really in depth information.-=-

"Information" is what I said.

But when talking about "educational materials" (specifically textbooks), many school districts have a policy of keeping books for five or six years before replacing them. So a science or history textbook will be seven years from its writing and still be in use in a classroom. By the time a book is written, reviewed by committees, edited, published and delivered, it will be well over a year old already.


Sandra



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Karen James

I just read an article about Jamie Oliver. He is a chef that has authored
22 cook books. His latest cook book is the "biggest selling work of
non-fiction since records began." Ironically, by his own admission, he has
never in his life read a book. Apparently, reading a book is not even
crucial for writing a book--not even a best-selling book. Interestingly,
according to Mr Oliver, his daughter reads a book a day.

~Karen.

jamesfamilyedutrip.blogspot.com



On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM, plaidpanties666
<[email protected]>wrote:

>
>
> catfish_friend <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Books are "crucial" in that they are time capsules, contextualizing the
> process of learning and passing on information amongst literate people
> especially pre-internet.
> ***********
>
> Coincidentally, we've just been watching a movie called "The Book of Kells"
> which is an animated story of how that particular legendary illuminated text
> might have come to be. Morgan has found it fascinating and we've had some
> interesting discussions about why one book was so vastly important to the
> people in the story. I dug through my bookcase and pulled out samples of
> illuminated texts, Celtic artwork, old religious paintings, even some art
> inspired by the Book of Kells. Today, Mo spent part of the day making
> drawings of Ed, Edd and Eddy in the style of old paintings of saints.
>
> So from a movie to the history of books and art to drawing with new scented
> markers - an unschooling day, one in which books certainly played a part,
> but weren't necessarily the main event.
>
> ---Meredith
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

otherstar

>>>Because the statement was "tend to be," it IS necessarily true. :-)
If someone wants current information, any book, by the time it is printed and mailed to your house will have its own updates, reviews and errata pages on the web.<<<<

I am always hesitant to state that information on the web tends to be more current. I have run across quite a bit of outdated information on the web. A lot of sites are terrible about not updating pages or providing enough details to judge whether or not it is reliable AND up-to-date. I use the same criteria to judge information that I find on the web as I do information that I find in books.

>>>>"Information" is what I said.<<<<

I am a bit confused. I am not sure what this refers to as I was trying to differentiate between types of information. I think I slipped up and used some jargon (ready reference), which muddied the waters.

>>>>But when talking about "educational materials" (specifically textbooks), many school districts have a policy of keeping books for five or six years before replacing them. So a science or history textbook will be seven years from its writing and still be in use in a classroom. By the time a book is written, reviewed by committees, edited, published and delivered, it will be well over a year old already.<<<<

Precisely. My daughter loves being able search the Internet the minute she becomes interested in something. Based on her Internet searches, she decides whether or not it is something that she wants to dig into even further. We have some old textbooks laying around and they are out of date and uninteresting.

I teach an online class about developing library collections and currency is a huge issue for many libraries. Libraries subscribe to lots of databases full of current magazines to help make up for the fact that books are having a harder and harder time keeping up with current information.

Connie


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

thecugals

Just wanted to clear up some confusion on my part. When I first read your post, Sandra, it seemed to me you were saying audio books weren't books, which I disagree with. I think listening to an audio book (unabridged) is the same as reading the book. You get the same information or same story. When I reread the post I saw that you wrote that listening to audio books isn't READING. So, what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that while reading is a valuable tool for learning and books are valuable tools for learning, reading books isn't the end-all-be-all of learning.

Beth

dola dasgupta-banerji

A few points I Iike to add are as follows:

1. To say books are 'crucial' is like saying hey writing in long hand
everyday is crucial since it improves your handwriting.

2. Or it is like saying "an apple a day keeps the doctor away."

3. Writing a blog or letter with a child's name is being very juvenile. I
still do not see the whole point of doing it. Except for the 'oh sooo cute"
effect.

4. Books are crucial to a person who likes to read, TV is crucial to a
person who likes to watch TV, movies are crucial to person who likes to
watch films.

5. Then some people read books that are crucial only to their interests.
Like some read only gardening books, some only spiritual books, some read
about cars, some only cook books. etc.

6. Then there are others like me who have been totally transformed and look
for knowledge on the net google.com. I feel happier when I watch a movie
with my kids rather than reading a fiction. I do read a lot of spiritual
books (because they are crucial to me at this moment in my life).

Dola

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Sandra Dodd <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> -=- I made sure to transcribe key parts of conversation
> (educational-speaking). I was, in essence, deciding what was canonical and
> what wasn't. I thought (still do) about what dd may be surmising about
> learning, or at least the documentation of it, based on the events/photos I
> select for the blog--what am I privileging?-=-
>
> I don't think putting something in a blog makes it "canonical." It's a
> representative sample. In the section of my site about typical days, they're
> a sample of days the mom was inspired to write about. None of those families
> every could have had another day exactly like that one.
>
> When people post without their real names, it bothers me. Not "without real
> names," because if I were posting for 20 years as Sandra Dodd and it turned
> out my name was Shirley Pod, at least I was consistent. But if I had posted
> as "The Real Unschooling Mom" or something like that, it would be like
> having a sack on my head. It's not really possible to have a forthright
> exchange with someone with a sack on her head. You can't see the eyes to
> judge whether they're being honest. But people can't see my eyes when I
> write, either.
>
> So what's the difference?
>
> I really am Sandra Dodd. I have been Sandra Gill and Sandra Adams. That's
> right out there, public record, not hidden by me.
>
> Should everyone else be as "out there" as that? Maybe not. Not everyone
> wants to be. Some are shy. Some are paranoid.
>
> It doesn't matter in absolute whole-world terms what bothers me or what I
> prefer. But on this list or in comments on a blog that's clearly mine, it
> matters more. There is an aspect of being on someone else's property, or in
> someone else's house. I wouldn't easily welcome someone into my house who
> had a sack on her head.
>
> There was a woman in our old neighborhood who used to do her yardwork with
> a sack on her head. I didn't know her, and never knew whether she had a
> severe sun allergy, or skin cancer, or was deformed or what. Cloth bag, all
> the way over her head. I might've wanted to know more before I invited her
> to a party at my house, I guess. But as long as she was in her own yard,
> what I thought didn't matter. What I thought was that she was in her own
> yard. :-)
>
> Should I have to ask her before I tell people here "I saw a woman doing
> yardwork with a sack on her head; saw her repeatedly"? No, because I saw
> that myself.
> My neighbors haven't been yelling and threatening as much as they used to,
> or at least not outside. Probably because it's winter. Should I need to ask
> them before I tell others that my neighbors yell insults and threaten each
> other? The police come. I've called three times over the years, but clearly
> other neighbors call too. If they said "I don't want you to tell the people
> on your discussion list that we yell and threaten each other, or that the
> police come," would that be reasonable?
>
> I don't tell everything my kids do or say. There is judgment and discretion
> involved, for various reasons. But there are things I tell without
> hesitation, without asking permission.
>
> Sandra
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=-So, what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that while reading is a valuable tool for learning and books are valuable tools for learning, reading books isn't the end-all-be-all of learning.-=-

Yes.
Nor even the necessary or primary starting point.
Neither the alpha nor the omega. :-)

-=-When I first read your post, Sandra, it seemed to me you were saying audio books weren't books, which I disagree with.-=-

When I download a sound file from audible.com, I don't own a book. I own some potential noise--a sound file!

-=- I think listening to an audio book (unabridged) is the same as reading the book. You get the same information or same story.-=-

It's not. When I read a book, I might have NO IDEA of the accents.
If you want to listen to a book that will NOT be the same as reading it, listen to The Help, done with different voices and different southern U.S. accents from the early 1960's. I don't have those in my head at all, and it made a world of difference. It was more like a radio show. Dramatic interpretation.

I've listened to some audio book readings that totally pissed me off. One guy would take a breath in the middle of a sentence, for effect, I guess. A habit. In the middle of a phrase, really. But he did it hundreds of times and I couldn't ask him to stop it. It was a cross between monotony and sing-songy... eeeek!!!

Listening to "Stuff" was pretty nice, but I needed the paper book to turn pages down and mark passages to go back to. I wasn't able to do that. But the advantage was he kept reading, and if it had been me, I would have put the book down in agitation and not been able to finish. But doing that while I was doing something else (sewing, mostly; sometimes playing Plants vs. Zombies) I heard the whole thing in just a couple of days.

I think just because Hamlet can be bought in a freestanding volume does not make it a book. It's a play.
I had the book of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead for a long time, but it was just a book. When I saw the movie, it came to full-color, costumed, hilarious LIFE. The book was NOT better than the movie. :-) It wasn't "a book." (I haven't seen it performed on stage, but would like to someday.)

I have a book of The Beatles Illustrated Lyrics. Y'think it's better than the songs? No way at all. It's a reference book with artsy bits.

Sandra






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

k

>>>Books are crucial to a person who likes to read, TV is crucial to a
person who likes to watch TV, movies are crucial to person who likes to
watch films.<<<

I like what you've written here. I might still add the word "books" after
"Books are crucial to a person who likes to read ..." though.

Sometimes books are very important to me yet as much as I love them, lately,
the last few years, I've seen the idea of the book expanding so far as to be
really in need of another word to describe it. On a Facebook group page, an
author (Anne Rice) often brings up the subject of this idea. It does
something for the sci-fi lover in me to be in on those discussions about
"books" turning into other objects. I remember reading a book (from Frank
Herbert's Dune chronicle) and being fascinated with the idea of whole reams
of books being stored on wires. It was called shigawire and functioned like
projected film transferred onto the nerves I think. Something like that. I'm
going on memory. And that was written way before all this digitalization of
recent years. In the 1960s.

~Katherine


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

diana jenner

-----The questions I'd like to discuss are whether books are "crucial," and
about anonymity/misrepresentation, and speaking for one's child.----

No, books aren't crucial (at least not at this point in our civilization),
but they smell real good and I love holding them in my hands. ---------

On Christmas I was similarly waxing poetic about the feel and smell of a
good, engrossing book, with some 20something friends... The looks on their
faces reminded me of when I listened to a similar passion expressed by my
grandfather, about the experience of saddling his horse before going out
"nothing like the sound, smell and feel of good leather" :D
Hm, now I know why he liked cars that squeaked when you sat down in them ;)
~diana :)
xoxoxoxo
hannahbearski.wordpress.com
hannahsashes.blogspot.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]