tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345949833876069606.post5987157878584924134..comments2024-01-22T16:37:43.189-08:00Comments on old Ladybird Books: Frightened of a Ladybird - part 1Helenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07184917749393353999noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345949833876069606.post-17094762918548504672015-05-09T02:48:03.922-07:002015-05-09T02:48:03.922-07:00Couldn't agree more, level of enthusiasm depen...Couldn't agree more, level of enthusiasm depends so much on the age of the enthuser, and their age when the books were current. Astonishing as it may be that this even works for The Garden Gang.<br /><br />Apologies to Jane for getting her dress and cardigan colours mixed!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15152054307269878586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345949833876069606.post-90939085435826393672015-04-28T04:32:09.936-07:002015-04-28T04:32:09.936-07:00(cont.) ...on the age that you were when you used ...(cont.) ...on the age that you were when you used the books <i>as a child</i>. I can't love the 1970s P&J , for example (even though the text doesn't really change) also because I was a bit too old for them. The same goes for The Garden Gang. I never liked the illustrations - but they were successful with kids a bit younger than me - and now are fondly remembered by those children - now adults.<br />Whether I personally agree or not, your point that there’s too much emphasis on the visual may be a good one. But in the case of the 606d tales, it is the original 1964-74 versions that excite such nostalgia today, not the late-70s, 80s revisions – even though the text remains, in many cases, unchanged. <br />Helenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07184917749393353999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345949833876069606.post-35654121879091911462015-04-28T04:30:57.671-07:002015-04-28T04:30:57.671-07:00I know you love the illustrations - and I realise ...I know you love the illustrations - and I realise you’re just correcting what, to you, seems like an imbalance. To me, responses to such books are bound to be very subjective.<br /><br />As you say, your memories are of 70s/80s staffrooms (by which time even LB had realised the books were outdated). Jane's emblematic yellow cardigan was painted in 1963. <br /><br />(That said, and to my surprise, I receive an email every other week from someone who wants to get hold of the Key Word series because it "captures their child's imagination" as, apparently, nothing else has). <br /><br />But in general this sort of response seems very dependent ... <br />Helenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07184917749393353999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345949833876069606.post-1583184144874021382015-04-28T01:19:01.292-07:002015-04-28T01:19:01.292-07:00Cheeky, with the 'sweeping generalisations'...Cheeky, with the 'sweeping generalisations'!<br /><br />Happily my memories of teacher training, staffrooms etc at the end of the seventies/early eighties is intact. And did you have these - Dorothy Butler's Babies Need Books,Jim Trelease's The Read-Aloud Handbook?<br /><br />Anyway, as you well know, I love Ladybird illustrations but also, in the non-fiction especially, their text.Just hoping to redress the balance a little.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15152054307269878586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345949833876069606.post-82278386260826347312015-04-22T03:32:52.555-07:002015-04-22T03:32:52.555-07:00Wow! No sweeping generalisations there!
Some '...Wow! No sweeping generalisations there!<br /><br />Some 'specialists' felt as you did, others did not. At the time, most did not. Hence the phenomenal success of the scheme over the decades with teachers, parents and children. But of course, approaches and tastes evolve over the years.<br /><br />Aside from that, let's not forget that today's nostalgia-filled adults are almost exclusively the same children who, like myself, learnt to read with these books themselves. Rushing to recapture a miserable experience of childhood?<br /><br />As for your broader point, we will have to beg to differ too. For me the prevalence of visual focus is appropriate.Helenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07184917749393353999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345949833876069606.post-83343023847528514522015-04-22T03:02:08.598-07:002015-04-22T03:02:08.598-07:00Nothing invalid about adults valuing the Peter and...Nothing invalid about adults valuing the Peter and Jane illustrations for their skill, charm, nostalgia value etc. But as a reading scheme (here I have experience as a reading specialist in the seventies and eighties) Peter and Jane bored most children, and today's adults blank that out in the rush to coo over Jane's little white cardigan. <br /><br />So my original point about disregarding the text in your fear sample reminded me of the prevalence of visual focus elsewhere.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15152054307269878586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345949833876069606.post-15340109866373513712015-04-13T02:48:35.109-07:002015-04-13T02:48:35.109-07:00Ah but I'm afraid the point you're making ...Ah but I'm afraid the point you're making is as an adult reading the story, not as a child. If you didn't grow up struggling to read these stories by yourself, I don't think you can quite appreciate the impact of the pictures. Similarly you didn't learn to read with Peter and Jane. By using the word 'worship' then you appreciate that it is a real and widespread response. It may not be one you share, not having had quite the same experience, but that doesn't make it invalid. <br /><br />Helenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07184917749393353999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6345949833876069606.post-72236090907451465872015-04-13T02:19:49.116-07:002015-04-13T02:19:49.116-07:00All very interesting, and very visual. The assumpt...All very interesting, and very visual. The assumption seems to be that the pictures are the big thing, and for many they are. Rumplestiltskin however pointy and waspy didn't bother us too much though, compared to the concept of 'something nasty under the bridge'. Which as a responsible parent I milked every time we came to a little bridge on a walk...<br /><br />So what I am saying, is that the words of the story are there too, not just the illustrations. A point I could make about all the 'Peter and Jane' worship as well, but don't get me started.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15152054307269878586noreply@blogger.com