What i never realized was that a LOT of these books, Eric Carles are in that camp, are using words chosen to teach kids basic language skills and sentence formation. The ones that dont really employ a lot of those learning mechanisms, seem to be the ones that we grow tired of quickly and hit the back of the stack.. Im sure Nostalgia is part of it too.
Dr. Suess is similar and very heavy on sounds/aliteration. But you would be surprised to know that many of his books actually use very few words. Like Green Eggs and Ham is like 50 pages of sentence after sentence but only uses like 50 words total or something like that (i could be wrong, its one of the most famous ones that like that).
Honestly when I read to my young kids, i would get tired of the same books over and over and would just kinda make up the story. Now that my kids are learning to actually read, I dont do that anymore.
This is part of a broader phenomenon, where most things are more complicated than you first think when you dig into it. This leads some people to assume work in areas they don't understand is easy.
'That should only take 30 minutes' - winds up taking 2 calendar weeks.
Heck I get people that think MY job is just clicking next on installers, there are entire swaths of things we do that others simply aren’t aware of because it’s transparent to them. I even had one lady question how much I made based on that very assumption. (She’s not a very nice person in general anyway)
The new CIO knew not our role and assumed we were a physical packaging team, dealing with bubble wrap and cardboard boxes - "why do we pay them so much?"
The CIO was educated pretty quickly. :-)
edit: I had time, I wrote a shorter comment.
The worst children's books are ones that don't roll off the tongue, that use too-complicated phraseology, that through circumlocution challenge the rea—well, you get it. They trip me up!
But I have personally found these books with extreme limited vocabulary to be much better read-aloud books for 2-year-olds than books for independent reading by 4–5 year-olds. More generally, many other graded readers are excellent read-aloud books. At age 2–3, my kids particularly enjoyed the Henry and Mudge books https://www.amazon.com/dp/1534427139, and everything by Arnold Lobel.
If you are trying to teach kids to read, let me highly recommend Bloomfield’s workbook Let’s Read from the early 60s, which I heard about from a 2012 comment here on HN by Tokenadult. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0814311156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4665466
Bloomfield was one of the leading linguists of his era, and his book is very carefully structured to introduce only one new spelling–sound association per lesson, with the first half consisting of only regularly spelled words, so there is no possible confusion, with the full mishmash of irregular words only introduced after the reader is already fluent with regular spellings.
My son & I started working through it together for about 10–15 minutes per day when he was 3.5 years old, and it took about 8 months to get to the end, after which he could fluently read pretty much any material he could comprehend. As a not-quite-5 year-old he now happily independently reads books intended for 3rd–4th graders. (I’m not trying to suggest every kid should start on such a project at that age; every kid is different, and interests and attention span vary.)
And that’s pretty amazing for your kid. That’s waaaaay above normal. We read every night to the kids, but we aren’t a huge reading family (if that makes sense)
There is some discussion of the differences in the two editions in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4665466 as well as the reviews on Amazon. I am going to give the updated version a try.
“Bear and Wolf walked through the quietly falling snow, using their eyes, and ears, and noses to take in the snowy woods.”
Bear is female, Wolf is male, and they are at home in the cold, as we can be if we allow ourselves to acclimate. They explore together, go they separate ways, and meet again in late spring.
Also, I find Owl at Home intriguingly solipsistic, but that's not really a concept that I think my kids would understand.
My favorite to read to my little guys is _This is Not My Hat_ by Jon Klassen, which is one of the funniest, most subtle ones we've come across.
His books are superb! Short, sweet and extremely funny :D
My kids never got tired of me reading it and I never got tired of reading it. They loved that book. The illustrations are extremely well done. Who would draw bats wearing floaties?
I distinctly remember one day Skyping with my mother telling her how hard it was to find good kids books and using "A Sick Day for Amos McGee" as an example of a good one. I recited a few lines to demonstrate the language, "Every day when his alarm clock clanged Amos swung his legs out of bed and swapped his pajamas for a fresh-pressed uniform"... my daughter, to my surprise (not yet old enough to talk at the time) rushed into the other room to fetch the book.
Brown Bear, Brown Bear from Carle himself is mediocre junk. It's just colors and animals, and has no character, no narrative, no arc.
The Hungry, Hungry Caterpillar is an amazing, astounding masterpiece. It is usually printed with a sort of dynamic tactical approach with different page sizes, holes in the pages, the story has a real arc, it teaches biology, it carefully works in numbers and days of the week and the idea of time frame… it's a true stand-out.
Most of Carle's stuff is somewhere in the middle, though he has a few other superb ones.
Just like art for older audiences, there really is a range. You could say that all movies are the same: people having conflicts and doing stuff. On some level, they're all dramatic and simplistic.
It's not mere taste. What makes a great book or movie for any age is not total relativism.
It has attractive clear illustrations of one animal per page, a simple repeating structure with only a few new words each page, nice rhyme/meter. Its structure involves repeatedly anticipating the next animal, which makes it easy to memorize.
It is a book my kids enjoyed “reading” aloud to themselves at age 1.5–2 before they could fully remember the content of more complicated picture books.
* * *
Of course, this isn’t the only type of book small kids should be listening to, and in the genre of extremely simple picture books there is a lot of abject garbage.
But I'm not actually opposed to the basic structure of "animal color" that Brown Bear has, I think it could retain that and somehow also get more effective nuance. It's entirely superficial. Note also that 2yo's don't have an experience and relation to classes and teachers, so that doesn't even fit. The very same structure could be less arbitrary and be used instead to connect associations that are worthwhile making for the 2yo's, the way that Hungry Hungry Caterpillar doesn't just show randomness, it actually fits a real biological context.
Adapt Brown Bear to highlight an ecosystem that goes together and it would be superior and still achieve all the same interest in the 2yo's.
Another one in a similar vein, which my kid liked, was "Here Are My Hands"
The wolf travels to other animals' homes; the animals are afraid at first, but they let him in because he says he only wants to make soup.
He comes in, boils water in a big pot, puts his stone in. The animals want to help with the soup, and so they suggest other ingredients. The wolf says "well, sure, you can add that if you want".
They drink the soup together. Then the wolf gets up, takes his stone back from the pot, and leaves.
The process repeats for 8 or 10 different animals, and that's it.
It's a fantastic book. We must have read it hundreds of times.
It takes real talent to appeal to both young and old. The early Spongebob cartoons were like that, Bugs Bunny, and the early seasons of The Simpsons
--------
He saw a puddle and he tried to swerve--
Into the mud rolled the big fat truck,
and his big important wheels got STUCK