'cause i see the trust in their eyes (though the sky is falling)

Yesterday, I was reading a children's book series with Katie. (Around a 3rd grade age level.) I was appalled – no I'm not exaggerating – to find that because the book was from the 1st person POV of an eight year old, the author thought it would be appropriate to use atrocious grammar to create a sense of realism. In the narration, not dialogue.

Why was this appalling? Because every single adverb had been switched to an adjective.
"Our hands didn't fit together good" "I sat quick" etc. Every single one. On almost every page. How is a child supposed to develop an ear for writing, language, speaking, if children's books are speaking down to them?

It reminds me of a Moreland book I read freshman year. He said that to expand his mind, he would often read books much higher than his intellectual ability in order to stretch himself. This developed his vocabulary and his conceptual faculty. Of course, yanni, there are books that will stretch minds in other ways – or simply provide entertainment and distraction. (I have a friend who reads the entire Harry Potter series after breakups because they are light enough to easily distract, but heavy enough to immerse in.)

Seriously though, what you put in is often what comes out. As Mike Warnke says "Eat fat, greasy food, become a fat, greasy dude." Same with reading.

So why are we destroying our children with questionable writing? My roommate Rebekah took a class on Children's Lit. for her elementary ed. degree. She read a wide spectrum of children's books – young children's books – and told me that the books from 40, 50, 100 years ago were much more intellectual than the children's books of today. They were often layered plots with high vocabulary (sprinkled in, not constantly). Look at Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, etc.

No, not all children's books need to blow minds; some of them are there to simply encourage practicing reading. Fine. They can be simple, fun, and amusing, without eroding young minds by purposefully using bad grammar.

**

Junior year I took an aerobics class with my roommate Christine, who, after 10+ years of ballet, is flexible like Gumby and coordinated like Beckham. I'm more along the lines of the Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz. Before oil.

The instructor loved using Christine as an example for the class. But she also loved me, because although I was constantly flailing and failing, I was failing with a smile. That and my mismatched, colorful socks – she labeled me as creative because of them. Christine said they were a product of my laziness when doing laundry.

Even the silliest things have a million causes. Some people like to find the biggest, most directly linked reason, and cling to it like Saran Wrap. Others like to examine every single possible impact, and try to assign them accurate weight. My problem with considering every possibility/plausibility, is that I often impose issues that aren't actually there. Some people are extremely influenced by the power of suggestion. That's why I watch LOST. It's always focused, clear, and thoroughly expunged of hints.

**

Quote of the Day: I have never met a person I could despair of, or lose all hope for, after discerning what lies in me apart from the grace of God.
– Oswald Chambers