2 ms·
I assure you there are more interesting books for children. At least judged by the "do kids actually want to read it" factor. I do not know "The Wind in the Wil
by watwut 1y ago
I assure you there are more interesting books for children. At least judged by the "do kids actually want to read it" factor. I do not know "The Wind in the Willows", but Alice in Wonderland is not all that interesting. I mean, the philosophy parts were good, but the storyline something to be skipped.
> 80% of what I can find is just stories about kids playing in their house or dealing with some basic child problems like losing a toy.
You are talking about books for very small kids here. At that age, they were not understanding Alice in Wonderland. But, the small ones actually liked those losing a toy books.
> The other 20% is adult political issues shoe-horned into children's books.
Kids books and entertainment was always vehicle for teaching kids rights and wrongs. You have that in Narnia, you have that in Thomas the Tank Engine, you have that in pretty much any Christian kids books. The moralizing ethical aspect is especially clear when you look at older books, because distance makes it all that more apparent.
Even Alice in Wonderland is meant to teach you philosophy first rather then be just a story.
- foxglacier 1y agoI agree right and wrong is good when it's fundamental enough to bet it'll last their lifetime and isn't simple preaching. But also complex human emotions and interactions are useful and interesting to them. The politics I'm complaining about is far more specific than that and I don't think 3-5 year olds either need it or can understand it - like environmental pollution, punishing capitalists, which ancient battle some holiday commemorates, life story of a specific politician, endangered species, cultural headgear, etc. My kid seems to prefer choosing classic stories over the piles of modern books we also have.