A short rant about book lengths and lack of editing

I've got about a dozen books in various stages of reading progress, and while they aren't awful, they're not holding my interest very well (hence the dozen), mostly due to the fact that they are needlessly, freakishly, disproportionately long for the plot, action, and characters.
Is it just me or do authors seem to think they need to write epics? Long, droning tomes in serious need of editing. What has happened to editors? Doesn't anyone value pithy, substantive writing anymore? Please, editors, for the love of all that's good and right, wield those red pens with more fervor! Stop the madness!

Recent Reads

Scarlet by A. C. Gaughen (2012). What bookish girl doesn't fall in love with Robin Hood at a fairly young age? I've been fascinated by the legend of Robin Hood since I first read Howard Pyle's The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood of his exploits when I was eleven or so. I loved that book and reread it often. Years later when my parents took us to England for vacation the summer after I turned fifteen, we decided we had to go to Sherwood Forest. It was there that I learned, to my supreme disappointment, that Robin Hood was just a legend. (I wonder why I thought he was real?) This book is a reworking of the Robin Hood legend from the standpoint of a knife-wielding, female "Will" Scarlet, disguised as a boy. I'm not sure how I feel about this book. For sheer entertainment value, it did pretty well. With a few exceptions, I stayed interested in seeing what was going to happen. I mostly liked the characterizations, although I personally don't think the strength of Robin's character features very clearly. Little John features a little too much. I didn't care for him. The story has good action, but the plot is a little lacking, and had too many repeats of the same incident (Scarlet sneaking into somewhere to snoop or free people and getting beat up/wounded in the process), just tweaked a little. I also didn't like the love triangle going on. I think it was relied on too heavily as a plot device, and the many jealousy scenes got old. (I get so tired of love triangles in YA fiction.) But for all my little peeves, it was a very decent read.

My cousin Suey of It's All About Books brought this one to my attention. (Clicking on the website link will take you to her enthusiastic review.)

For a better retelling, read Robin McKinley's The Outlaws of Sherwood. Apart from the Pyle book, it's probably my favorite. It's suitable for readers as young as eight.

Why Gender Matters by Leonard Sax (2005). I read this one on the recommendation of a speaker at the last homeschool convention I attended. The book discusses the differences in the male and female brains and the author draws some conclusions about the ramifications of those differences. I'm not sure what I feel about it. I think that the common trend for gender-sameness in public schools is problematic, especially for boys. (By "gender-sameness" I mean the idea that there are no physiological or chemical differences -besides the obvious glandular and hormonal ones- in boys and girls and how they learn best.) I'm not sure I would draw the same conclusions he does in some instances regarding what to do about those gender differences, especially in regard to those children he terms "anomalous." But the book makes for fascinating reading.

Pippi Longstocking by Astrid Lindgren. (Unabdridged Audiobook, read by Esther Benson) I had only a vague recollection of this book, centering exclusively around Pippi herself, her little monkey Mr. Nilsson, and the horse on the porch. I do remember one of my elementary school teachers reading it aloud, but I couldn't for the life of me remember anything of plots or stories. Since it's a childhood classic, I have long been toying with the idea of reading it aloud to my girls, but other, more interesting books have always gotten in the way. We found the audiobook at the library and decided to get it to listen to during our about-town errands. Esther Benson does a good job with the narration, but I have to confess that I'm not a fan of the story. It's like nails on a chalkboard. And I know why I remember almost nothing about it. There's not much there to remember. My feelings can be summed up by my seven-year-old Karina's comment, "For all her travels, she's not very smart, is she?" For all her wildness and shenanigans, she's also not that interesting. I can only attribute the book's lasting impact being due to the wildly outrageous, non-conformist main character, because everything else about it, including the "adventures," is boring. And why, for being as old as she is, does she never learn from her social gaffes? Her wide-eyed, quasi-innocent, "isn't-this-jolly" preciousness (as my grandmother would have said) is nauseating and irritating. Her wildly braggadocio lies aren't even very interesting. This is one book I won't be adding to our personal library. If my children end up loving it down the road ('though they don't seem very keen on it at present) they can buy it with their own money. So there.

Picture Book Biographies: Poets

April is National Poetry Month here in the United States. I've read poetry to my girls from the time they were babies, because I love it and want them to love it and to not be intimidated by the format. But I've found that sharing poetry with them is even more effective after they can first see the poet as a real person. Here, in no particular order, are some picture book biographies -some deal only with a certain portion of the poet's life- of poets that combine a well-told narrative with striking pictures to capture and keep children's attention. Each book is illustrated in a different style. (I'd recommend these books for ages 7 and up.)

William Carlos Williams

(Written by Jen Bryant; illustrated by Melissa Sweet)

Walt Whitman

(Written by Barbara Kerley; illustrated by Brian Selznick)

Emma Lazarus

(Written by Linda Glaser; illustrated by Claire A. Nivola)

Langston Hughes

(Written by Robert Burleigh; illustrated by Leonard Jenkins)

Emily Dickinson

(Written and illustrated by Jeanette Winter)

Pablo Neruda

(Written by Monica Brown; illustrated by Julie Paschkis)

Robert Burns

(Written by Joanne Findon; illustrated by Ted Nasmith)

Picture Book: Shibumi and the Kitemaker by Mercer Mayer

Shibumi and the Kitemaker

Written and illustrated by Mercer Mayer
Picture book
Ages 5 and up (Reading Aloud)
Published in 1999 by Marshall Cavendish

In this original fable by Mercer Mayer, Shibumi is a young princess of a "far-away kingdom" sheltered behind garden walls she isn't allowed past. She dreams of the wonders on the other side of the wall. When she overhears some children outside the wall making fun of the princess they've never seen, Shibumi climbs a tree to set them straight, but the squalor and deprivation she sees from that tree shatter all her illusions of a better world beyond the wall. Fearing that her father will punish her for climbing the tree, but driven to change what she sees, she conceives a daring plan (that only a child would think of) that will force her father, the emperor, to make the situation better. Her drastic action gets his attention, and through it, she finally tells him what she wishes to happen. As he starts to implement a plan to fulfill her greatest wish, his councilors, thinking he has lost his mind and not eager to have the status quo changed, engage in a treacherous plot that results in Shibumi fleeing into exile. Despite his broken heart, or maybe because of it, the emperor works for years to implement the needed changes to his land, but is now, many years after Shibumi's departure, besieged in outright war by angry nobles who want things to return to the way they were. A young samurai goes in search of Shibumi, knowing that her father needs her to help him continue what she started.

Mayer's love of Japanese art and culture is evident in every beautiful and meticulous illustration.

This is a book with some heavy themes for young children: inequality of classes, the "haves" vs. "have-nots," and the difference one person can make in a seemingly impossible situation. I appreciated how Mayer allowed Shibumi's "grass-is-greener" attitude to develop into a deep conviction that she needed to be -and believed she could be- an instrument of change. I also appreciated that he didn't show the process as being easy or quick. I expect it's a book my girls will think about for years to come.

My seven and eight year-old daughters loved this fable. My four-year-old at least stayed beside me while we read, sometimes tuning out, but then something would draw her back in.

Sadly, this book is out of print. Our copy was borrowed from the library.

Popular Books Everyone Else Has Read But Me (It Seems)

• The Hunger Games trilogy. I'll mention this first because of all the movie hype surrounding it right now. My mom and sister have both read it and recommend it, but it's not a series I've had a burning desire to read.
• The Harry Potter books. I should probably have my children's-lit-lover card pulled, but I couldn't get into this series. I've tried several times with the first book, and I've quit every time.
• The Chronicles of Narnia. I yawned my way through the first book when I was 11, and remember very little about it. I never had any desire to read the rest of the series. On the other hand, my sister read and re-read them.
• Charles Dickens books. I've tried at various times over the years, but I'm just not drawn to his writing style. I've never been able to finish one of his books.
• John Steinbeck books. I never had to read any of his works in my British international high school, or at university (amazingly) and I've still not gotten around to it as an adult.
• Stephen King books. I'm not into the horror genre, and until recently, I thought that was all he wrote, but I've since learned that's not so, however...so far I've not given any of his books a try. (I love the movies The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, both film adaptations of his works.)

I'm sure there are more, but that's all I can think of at the moment.

Day-to-Day Homeschooling: What I Don't Do

Let me say this straight up so there can be no confusion: I am not a homeschooling expert or domestic goddess. I would probably be thrown out of blogdom's homeschooling club, or at least pointed to as an example of what NOT to do. I'm kidding. Those of us in the homeschooling trenches know that home education looks different for every family, as it should, since we're dealing with individuals, not paper dolls.

• I can't/won't label the method of our homeschooling. I have never found a good one-size-fits-all method to homeschooling my girls. Every year that we do this -and we're in our third- looks slightly different, based on their growing needs and knowledge, and the reality of my strengths and weaknesses. Heck, every day looks slightly different. I identify with lots of methods (unschooling, Charlotte Mason, Montessori, Classical, etc.) but I refuse to stick to just one, because I think that would be doing my girls an injustice and besides, it's too boring. We pluck the pieces of any method that fit our situation on a day-by-day, sometimes hour-by-hour, basis. Does that sound like it would get confusing? It doesn't. It's just a natural extension of parenting. For example, this year I had decided to use Calvert School* with them. I'm not sure why, now. But once we got going, we hated it so much (because it felt like school and I hate teaching from textbooks) that we scrapped most of it. (I love the read-alouds that came with it, and Olivia loves the history book Famous Americans, that came with her course. She reads it all the time.) I do better when I set the curriculum, which really just means that I buy some workbooks for the areas I feel we need them, and use real books and real life for the rest.
• We do not homeschool for religious reasons. God had nothing to do with my decision to pull my girls out of public school. We homeschool because it's the best fit and option for our family, and a natural extension of life. (I only say this because of an emailed comment/question I received after my last post, and I want to make sure our motivations for homeschooling are clear.)
• Routine? What routine? Okay, we have a vague one: get up, get breakfast, do math, free time for the rest of the day interspersed with reading aloud, chores here and there, and eating here and there. Maybe an outing to the zoo or what not. I don't make lesson plans. Tried it early on in our homeschool adventure, didn't like it. I don't roll like that, and to me life can't be scripted; and that's what we're engaged in here: life. The free time the girls have allows them to indulge in areas of their own interest. And believe me, they do.
• I don't have a dedicated schoolroom. There is just Todd's and my office which I facetiously call "Homeschool Central" because that's where I keep most of the schoolish stuff we use. The girls do their work wherever they please: if it's math, they stretch out on the office floor for quick access to me when they're having problems, or they'll sit at the kitchen table if I'm in there putting together our crockpot supper. We have lap desks that get used occasionally.
• I don't push academics before they're ready. I'm mostly talking pre-school years here. I cringe whenever I hear someone say they're homeschooling their three or four year old. I firmly believe that the business of young children is play. Some children are ready for academics at younger ages, some are not. My girls have always given cues as to their readiness for certain subjects. As long as I pay attention, things flow smoothly, and real learning happens. (For an excellent post about the business of pre-schoolers, read this wonderful response by Professor Tim of Fanny Harville's Unschool Academy.)
• I don't feel the need to enroll them in every activity/class under the sun, out of fear that they'll miss out on something or fear of the dreaded "S" word. (That's "Socialization" for you homeschooling newbies -something non-homeschoolers squawk about as being a BIG PROBLEM, but veteran homeschoolers laugh at.) I have noticed a tendency in homeschooling circles to use one's busy-ness as as a badge of...what, I don't know. For me, this is definitely an area where less is better, especially when children are young. This may be because I'm an older mom who's not a Type A personality; I just don't see the point in all the bustle of constant activity. I think we humans need plenty of quiet and space to process life experiences, plan and dream. (Also, our weekends are spent as a family. We see so little of Todd during the week due to his job, that weekends are all about low key time with Daddy.) I also don't feel the need to indulge every interest they express. Sometimes I have to tell them, "That's something we'll explore when you're older."
• I don't do arts and crafts. That is to say, I love the idea, but hate the execution. Beyond providing art supplies, I don't do art with them, except things like demonstrating a technique (maybe), teaching them the basics of crocheting, or refilling Susanna's water bowl when she's painting, etc. My kids, being kids, love art and have learned to carry on despite my relative non-involvement. Art station? Hah!! I can't even keep colored pencils or crayons in one container. My kids drag art supplies from one end of the house to the other (yelling because so-and-so took their glue stick) because heaven forbid they should do art in the same space as each other. They feel the need for their own creative space, which consists of their bed, the bedroom floor, the closets, etc. which also means there are art supplies and scraps of paper/cardboard/yarn EVERYWHERE! We dispose of a full 30 gallon trash bag of art trash every week, some of it finished products because they create something, drop it somewhere and forget all about it. I have no problem, not one twinge of guilt with the liberal use of the round file. (On a side note: I'll bet I get the meanest mom award for not even allowing markers or glue sticks in my house until I felt sure that all desire for writing on walls, furniture, etc. was firmly squashed, which means only in this last year have my children discovered the "joys" of markers and glue sticks. And I don't do glitter. Ever. Or sequins.)
• I don't "play" with my children, except playing games (board games, card games, etc.), and the occasional tag and hide-and-seek, and reading aloud. I feel that inserting myself into their imaginary play is intrusive, and doesn't teach them how to be comfortable doing their own thing.
• I don't allow them much computer time: a half hour twice a week at the most. I think too much computer time hinders their attention spans. I laugh when people insist that children need to familiarize themselves with computers early, like it's so hard to learn. Hello, those of us who were adults when the WWW came into being managed to learn pretty quickly. I'm not a Luddite, I like technology; I just feel that technology has its place and time.
• I can't think of anything else at the moment. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them.

*Calvert uses a boxed, fully set, secular curriculum. They are the original makers of a complete boxed curriculum. Originally created for State Department kids overseas, they expanded into the U.S. homeschooling market, too.

Our Homeschooling Goals

Our family became homeschoolers in fits and starts. After a traumatic and disastrous time spent in public school, we knew we had to bring our girls home for good. But I knew I had to deal with the reality of homeschooling. Despite my teacher training in college, the reality of being my children's primary academic educator was a wee bit daunting, no matter how natural the idea felt. What should it look like, really?

Todd and I both felt strongly that we didn't want it to look like the public school system we had pulled them out of. I read everything I could get my hands on regarding alternative educational philosophies, e.g. John Holt, Charlotte Mason, Maria Montessori, Waldorf, etc. I read books of real parents in the homeschooling trenches.

I shared my findings with Todd and we had many long discussions, trying to wrap our minds around a completely different, but more natural, idea of what being educated means. More importantly, what should it look like for us?

We realized we needed to begin with the end in mind: in imagining our children grown, what was it we TRULY wanted them to be able to do, that we could give them REALISTICALLY? Thus our homeschooling "mission statement" was born.

• We wanted them to be comfortable with math and math concepts.
• We wanted them to be able to read and to (hopefully) enjoy reading. (If they learn to read, then the world of knowledge opens up for them.)
• We wanted them to have the skills necessary to find things out for themselves.
• We wanted them to have the life skills (balance a check book, read a map, follow a recipe, clean a toilet, etc.) that they’d need to negotiate life.

Then I gave myself permission to let the rest go. Their life is not going to be ruined if we cannot/will not provide them with every possible learning experience. My job is to teach them how to learn; they have the rest of their life to experience many, many things, (including arts and crafts and science projects.) The whole of life is a learning journey.

So right now we focus on real books (as opposed to textbooks,) life skills, and math, and plenty of time for them to pursue their own interests.