Tree-Dwelling Bears, Spelling, and Phonetics. What Fun!

Here's a fun article I ran across, from Seventeen magazine blog post in August 2015.  Please read it, then come back here for my comments.

My two cents come from a rather tedious, technical point of view, because that's how I operate.  Love me, love my technicalities!

The Berenstain Bears, to my recollection, were definitely spelled with the a in the final syllable.  (Granted, I began reading in 1978, so I can't actually vouch for prior to then). To me, the name stood out as recognizably Anglicized, from -stein to -stain.  Many years later, I know it's more complex than that--in German it may have been spelled with other letters and/or vowels which don't exist in English.

If it had been spelled Berenstein all along, then all along we would very likely have been pronouncing it "Bear-en-stine". Yet we have not been saying it that way.

Admittedly, there are people who say "Bear-en-steen".  To me that indicates they are visualizing it in their mind spelled Berenstein.  That's a perfectly natural inclination, to make it German in appearance, to match the overall German-ness that it evokes.

If it had been spelled Berenstein, American readers who ran across it could pronounce it either "Bear-en-stine" or "Bear-en-steen". One could even argue that some people might say "Bear-en-stain" because they are leaning towards the idea of German names with -oe pronounced as -ay, such as Boehner (pronounced "Bayner"), or Koenig (pronounced "Kaynig").  Since Berenstein contains -ei, not -oe, that is a weak argument, but it's not baseless.

In practice, people either say "stain" because they've seen it spelled with -a, or they say "steen" because they've seen -stain but re-visualized it to something more familiar or authentic to their minds. But the fact that pretty much no one goes around saying "stine" supports my claim that it was "always" spelled with an a.

____________________
A tangent for another day: How did the name look and sound in German?  What's the likely path for it to have been Anglicized to -stain?  Perhaps its German bearers pronounced it as something close to "stain", and then it was transcribed in a way that approximated it for an American palate.  Probably need a German teacher for insight on that!

Messy Desk or No

I watched a video today about messy desks--and I watched it three times!

I was intrigued and validated when it said "The best in their field don't really worry about what their desks look like and instead get on with work."

According to this statement, I am "best in my field" because I definitely get on with work rather than spend time cleaning my desk.  But also according to this statement, I am NOT best in my field because I do continue to worry about what my desk looks like.

For now, I choose not to weigh in on whether my desk is allowed to be messy. I won't even worry about whether I am allowed to worry about what my desk looks like.  My takeaway from the video is this goal: Remember the phrase "best in my field" and use it to describe myself!

P.S. Revisit this later? "If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, then what are we to think about an empty desk?" --Albert Einstein

I just knew I would like this book, and I sure do.

A Letter for Leo by Sergio Ruzzier


Charmingly understated. Friends can understand each other even without speaking the same language.

View all my reviews

Why I So, So, So Loved the Julian Chapter

Wonder by R.J. Palacio
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

With the Julian Chapter added, I moved my rating from three stars to four; it made a story I liked into something that inspired me.

View all my reviews



This book has gotten lots of well-deserved attention on its own, so I don't need to describe the plot or even say how wonderful it is.  A chorus of voices have already said that.  I'll just say what might add something new to the discussion, which is: why I so, so, so loved the Julian Chapter.

First, Julian's grandmother was a well-rounded character, complex, human.  She had survived the Holocaust, and learned the importance of kindness, but "she still liked good clothes." She had been through a refiner's fire but had a frivolous pursuit or two.

Moreover, her son and grandson were not copies of her; they hadn't been through what she had been through.  Although she herself probably would have behaved kindly to Auggie had she met him, her grandson had yet to learn compassion.  And eventually, with her, his heart did change.

Second, Julian's change of heart took place away from Auggie.  That's realistic because in real life, people pass in and out our lives without neatly tied-up endings.  Someone who was a complete jerk to us may someday change, but it's unusual that we would get to see it.  We just carry the memory of how awful they were.  But God sees what they can and do become.  That's why he tells us not to judge.  He commands us to forgive because He intends that every person can rise above the bad they were before, and when they change for the better, he doesn't want others tying them down to how they were before.  We don't usually get it right on the first try, so "sometimes it's good to start over."

Rated G (for General Audiences)

I am generally not in favor of kids versions of regular books.  I think having kids versions has the tendency to keep kids from making the big step to regular books.

This New York Times article focuses on a recent trend: non-fiction adaptations for kids.  Doing non-fiction kids versions makes more sense to me than doing that with fiction, but I'm still not a big fan of it.

I think kids can and should make the leap from kids books to regular books in late junior high and high school, rather than sticking to the comfortable world of YA.  In today's world more children than ever before, and earlier than ever before, are experiencing very "adult" problems and exposures, (smoking, drinking, drug use, profanity and explicit behavior on television, pornography, sexual activity, abuse, and war, just to name a few). Yet we think they can't handle reading books written for the general audience?

I believe when books are truly quality, they are genuinely suitable for general audiences.  As a great example, the scriptures.  Kids will be challenged by the King James Version of the Bible, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't experience the challenge.  Someone else's summary of God's word is naturally inferior to the real thing. We may make it easier for kids to digest, but in doing so we remove the beauty of language that is the hallmark of the original.  And reading something "difficult" can improve your reading skills.  I know Bible reading did that for me during elementary school.

The Sound of Music is an example (albeit in movie form) of something made for general audiences but has merit for all ages watching.

Many examples in classic fiction, written for general audiences, and suitable for kids to cut their teeth on: Treasure Island, Hiawatha, -------

Some non-fiction that I think would be great for kids and teens: The Hiding Place, -------

Okay, I'm out of time, so I'll leave the lists of titles to be continued.  But I'm sending the post out anyway!



.

How much that's objectionable should be avoided?

I've talked a couple of times recently with my mother about reading choices, both for oneself and on behalf of children.  It's tough to draw the line between avoiding inappropriate material and overdoing it.  When talking to my mom, I had arrived at an uncomfortable conclusion.  I felt uncomfortable with blanketly ruling against an entire book solely because of the use of a four-letter word or two, but because I couldn't figure out where to draw the line, I was erring, with her, on the side of over-censorship.

  This article by Robert Gray, published on Shelf Awareness's Book trade newsletter September 26, 2014 is about banned books.  I really connected with what Jeannette Walls had to say.

"My book has ugly elements to it, but it's about hope and resilience, and I don't know why that wouldn't be an important message," Walls said. "Sometimes you have to walk through the muck to get to the message.... What I worry is that in order to protect them, we may be taking away the tools they need to protect themselves later on."

Jeannette Walls' idea rang true. We should not remove all unpleasantness from reading, but we should use it as an opportunity to discuss our values.  For example, Grandma might choose to read Questionable Book at the same time as Granddaughter in order to have an opportunity to discuss the drug use, the sexual activity, and other objectionable behaviors.  If Grandma instead forbids Granddaughter to read it, that discussion will not happen.  We know Grandma wants to share her values with Granddaughter (that's one of the things parenting is all about!)--and the "objectionable" book may be a way to get the door open for that important communication.

In order to be well prepared for the choices life will present, a young person needs guidance.  Among other things, they need a basic but thorough knowledge of what things to avoid.  We don't want to wallow in the muck, but we certainly need to point it out, name it, and help the child know how to avoid getting mired in it.

This post is not as polished as I would like, but it's getting the gist, which is my own better-clarified thoughts about choosing "appropriate" books.  My thanks to Jeannette, and to Robert Gray, too.

Why a "plain-old" picture book can be superior to an app

This is an article by Marla Frazee from the May 2011 Horn Book.  What stands out to me today is the part about how when the pictures in a book don't move, it actually encourages more active participation from the child.  The child would be interested either way, but with the app moving for them, they would merely watch.

(BTW That reminds me of the differences between watching a TV show and listening to a radio show.)

In my store, I've been promoting the book Press Here by Herve Tullet via post-it notes.  I write, "No batteries needed--this 'app' runs on magic!"  But of course what I really mean is that the "app" is powered by the reader's imagination, and that's more magical than running on batteries, or software and code.

I love that Press Here is interactive without even using levers or flaps, let alone electricity.  I would like as many kids and adults as possible to enjoy it.