enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
An Obvious Question
by el_barto2

"I have read one of them to my daughter nearly every nap- and bedtime since she was born: 796 consecutive days."

Why would you read a children's book to a newborn who can't even really see straight or understand what you're saying? Wouldn't other educational activities be more constructive and beneficial?

I can't imagine that a two year-old could even sit down for long enough to have that book read to her. Where does this obsessive over-achievement complex come from in certain socio-economic classes in America. I mean, you might as well get her a Harvard application now so that she has an early advantage, no?

Re: An Obvious Question
by jimiwiz
haha! i was wondering that myself, although i failed to mention it in my post. anyway, i agree. an infant can't see most colors anyway, so even the bold images of carle's aren't very affective. i think signing or reciting poems would be more beneficial to them. regarding your comment about over-achieving, it's perfectly normal for 2 year olds to love books. even though he can't read, my 2 year old son flips through and studies every page of every book he gets his hands on and he loves getting read to.
Re: An Obvious Question
by jimiwiz
i meant singing, not signing.
Re: An Obvious Question
by Persia

Well, sitting and reading with even a newborn is relaxing and a good use of cuddle time, especially if you are the kind of person who doesn't sit still well.

Why you would sit and read and read and read a book you don't even like is completely lost on me, though.

Re: An Obvious Question
by jillcoffee

Amen! Until my son could choose his own books (when he started walking), I chose what I wanted to read. We had a lot more variety that way. But we did have an Eric Carle book in that rotation... Now we read that same Richard Scarry and Thomas books over and over and over and over again.

Re: An Obvious Question
by emaufmuth

the point of reading with infants and young children isn't necessarily the book itself. the act of reading to a baby creates a soothing, comforting, and loving environment. it helps parents develop routines, and is usually very calming for parents too. reading can create and strengthen bonds between adults and infants. it's also a quiet moment without tons of stimulus, noise, lights, etc. it's a moment to just be and to relate to the child.

ultimately, with newborns, you can read whatever you want. when i worked with infants i'd often read to them from my university text books in a soothing tone. it helped me keep the info in my brain and the baby heard tons of odd words. really, the tone of it is what calmed them. i could talk about post-modern hegemony in a soothing voice and they'd fall asleep.

as for 2 year olds, they do have short attention spans. but there are tons of great books out there written for them. eric carle - whether you like him or not - incorporated short sentences, great visuals, and words that were in a child's every day life to capture their attention. basically, you should find books that match your child's stage of development, attention span, and interests.

while americans are becoming more pushy on the whole child genius thing (baby einstein i'm looking at you), i don't think that daily reading is a form of academic stress on a child. if anything, it makes reading fun, enjoyable, and part of the daily routine. it sets children up to want to learn. lap time and stories should not be about rote memorization or drilling letters into a child. it should be a time to relax, unwind, and encourage children to enjoy books.

that said, if the adult reading hates a book, that attitude will trickle down to the child. so find something you enjoy reading, whether it's an article from the newspaper, a book of poems, or the side of a cereal box. the value to reading with your child is the act, not necessarily the object you are reading. at a certain age they do express their personal preferences which should be respected. so slide in some other options that you might like and ween them off of the stuff you despise.

literacy and books are not about trying to be "male, middle-class, and white" (thanks Ben Folds) but about helping children develop the skills to learn about the world and become more curious about it. there are multiple ways to read and engage children with literacy through music, dramatic play, art, and other forms of culturally specific activities. really, there is no one way to learn to love literacy. however children get excited about reading is what's important, not the tools they use to get there. besides, does being poor mean children shouldn't be exposed to books, words, and literacy?

Re: An Obvious Question
by Hemlock3630

Why not read to a newborn? I did to my son.....and we have a great picture of him at 3.5 months sitting in my lap, peering quizzically (great little old man look on his face) at a book and turning pages himself.

Re: An Obvious Question
by krene208

In addition to all the reasons to read to a newborn listed above: It's a great way to talk to your newborn without feeling like you are talking to yourself. Let's face it - babies are not great conversationalists. They do, however, thrive on the connection to their caregivers and talking to them is important in forging that connection.

I suppose that you could read an eight page board book to a newborn ad nauseum - but you could also read "Midnight's Children" with much the same effect, and without driving yourself batty.

View as RSS news feed in XML