?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

This is her second nonpicture book. She finished Charlotte's Web a couple days ago.

I bought the seventh Harry Potter book because C said "it would be a legacy for my kids."

The purchase had its intended effect immediately. Special K showed an immediate interest in reading the book but I suggested she started reading the first book so she started reading Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. My recollection is that it's light fantasy and the first three books are all that way. We'll see how far Special K's interest extends versus her tolerance for the violence and death.

Special K has a high tolerance for fantasy violence and death. She used to play World of Warcraft and now she plays Guild Wars with her dad because the online community aspect is limited only to certain areas. She has a low tolerance for real violence and death. She draws a sharp distinction between the two. Whoever said that kids don't understand the difference has not met my child.

I guess it will depend on how "real" she thinks Harry Potter and his crew are. I'll ask her after the first book.

I find I have little interest in reading the seventh book. I skipped to the end and read the last few pages. Very bad I know. And now it sits there in all its largeness.

I know HP has big problems but I feel like I have several Voldemorts to deal with and I'm on quest to destroy them before they destroy my son's chance at a good life. Okay overly dramatic but isn't that what the HP series is all about?

Comments

( 6 notes — Leave a note )
(Deleted comment)
waterowl
Aug. 7th, 2007 03:44 am (UTC)
I say hello! Now. Write more later. :)
(Deleted comment)
kairon_gnothi
Aug. 19th, 2007 12:47 am (UTC)
Absolutely, kids can distinguish the difference between real violence and fantasy violence. I have to admit, though, that while some edges were blurred (violence was bad, learning swordplay was not) others we kept stark (violence was bad, guns toys are forbidden).
We more or less decided that we were more worried about Jazz or Wolf getting accidentally shot at a neighbor's house than we were about one of them(or both, when they were smaller) getting skewered by a longsword.
waterowl
Aug. 19th, 2007 03:40 pm (UTC)
Interesting distinction. I haven't decided how I feel about toy guns yet since Little T is too young and Special K is uninterested. Why did you decide toy guys were bad?
kairon_gnothi
Aug. 20th, 2007 02:30 pm (UTC)
Gun toys
The practical anxiety of our children being in other peoples' homes with real guns was actually a huge, if not the primary, anxiety. We wanted Jazz & Wolf to steer clear of any situation where real weapons were involved, and while we anticipated some limit-crossing, it happened with toys and not the real thing.

There's also a political piece to this; we're very anti-militarization and generally nonviolent (albeit not pacifists), so while we have no problem with some of the kids' play incorporating violence toward monsters, we did not want war games and the like to accustom them to realistic and modern human-on-human violence.
( 6 notes — Leave a note )