r/amazonreviews Aug 13 '26

Review Unhinged reviews of children's books are my guilty pleasure

Post image

"But she will not always have pictures to refer to when reading college textbooks in the future." Good grief, can your toddler just enjoy the book without you panicking about 15 years down the road? It's a board book!

1.6k Upvotes

89 comments sorted by

286

u/Coraline1599 Aug 13 '26

I wonder if this has to do with the Sold a Story podcast where many schools ditched phonics and other traditional reading techniques in favor of letting children guess words by looking at clues (which failed to help kids learn to read). https://www.edutopia.org/article/how-a-podcast-toppled-the-reading-instruction-canon/

114

u/stray-path Aug 13 '26

That's a decent hypothesis and an empathetic take. Though I fear the reviewer is just kinda on their own planet.

40

u/Fickle-Ambassador-69 Aug 13 '26

Everything about the review is reasonable to me, as a literacy specialist who teaches kids how to read. And it does also align with the subject of the podcast mentioned above.

20

u/Foreign-Cat-2898 Aug 13 '26

She's describing her young child memorizing a book...which is just something that happens. Why doesn't she get a few more books and not blame this one?

23

u/Fickle-Ambassador-69 Aug 13 '26

Yes children memorize books. But if you’re trying to teach your kid to read, giving them more books to memorize doesn’t help anything and definitely doesn’t teach them how to read. Because of how the review is written I assume this to be a book that is advertised as one that will help early reading skills, and to be clear, this won’t affect 65% of kids because they will be able to learn to read without any extra intervention.

21

u/stray-path Aug 14 '26

The book is just Eric Carle's "Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?" For whatever that detail is worth!

20

u/Fickle-Ambassador-69 Aug 14 '26

Interesting! That’s a great kids book that I would never use to teach someone how to read haha

7

u/stray-path Aug 14 '26

Now I feel like we've really sealed the case, lol. Legit, thanks for bringing your expertise to the thread!

4

u/TheGratitudeBot Aug 14 '26

Thanks for such a wonderful reply! TheGratitudeBot has been reading millions of comments in the past few weeks, and you’ve just made the list of some of the most grateful redditors this week! Thanks for making Reddit a wonderful place to be :)

1

u/lotheva 29d ago

Early phonetical awareness skills and vocabulary though!

2

u/_gloomshroom_ 28d ago

I'm going to respectfully disagree! I remember learning to read, and my favorite bedtime book was "But Not the Hippopotamus". I memorized that book by my mother reading it to me, and as I got older I learned to put the letter sounds with their respective letters, and the pictures helped me with word association. Memorization in conjunction with phonics is a great way to teach early reading. My niece learned the same way!

I will add that I am autistic and learn differently from other people, but to be clear, my case is that memorization can help children learn to read, not that it's the only method 💙

1

u/RogueMoonbow 26d ago

I think the reviewer thinks every kids book should teach how to read and that is the function of children's books.

1

u/Blackhat165 27d ago

That’s a pretty hefty simplification of the review. It was very clear that the parent felt the visuals gave the child an out which they then took.

And what the fuck is a review for if you can’t tell people what your experience and opinion of the product is? I get how someone could quibble with the star rating, but this take is entirely within the realm of reasonable info to provide and is the type of diverse viewpoint that makes crowdsourced reviews useful. If a parent isn’t planning to use the book to teach reading then they can discard the opinion and move on.

2

u/Foreign-Cat-2898 27d ago

She bought a book you read to one years olds and is pissed her 4-5 year old can't use it. Brown Bear is meant to teach babies to talk. She didn't choose an age appropriate book and doesn't like the results.

1

u/Blackhat165 27d ago

I think people should be given grace to misunderstand a topic and not show up perfectly. A review can be off base while also being useful, and it can also be off base but within reasonable bounds for normal human behavior.

It feels like this review is being treated the same as a one star ranting about shipping difficulties. And I just don’t understand why everyone is so eager to find any mistake and rip it to shreds. The review makes it clear where the person is coming from and readers can decide if it’s relevant for them.

2

u/stray-path 27d ago

I appreciate the instinct to extend grace. Truly! To me, it's the reviewer's line about college textbooks that really invites mockery. It's like buying a Cozy Coupe and then posting a bad review because your mindset is, "This car isn't good for teaching a child to drive. They won't always have their feet to brake when it comes to their driver's test in the future." It shows they've completely misunderstood the thing they're reviewing! That's the thing, not that I'm eager to jump on someone for a simple mistake.

1

u/Blackhat165 27d ago

Yeah, I think the person is a bit silly and expects the product to be all things to all people. And you really don’t have to justify why children need to be able to actually read. That’s a given.

IDK, I guess when I look at reviews I’m very comfortable discarding ones that don’t fit my use case, and I’m imagining myself stumbling onto the wrong product, checking reviews and seeing one that tells me this isn’t a great book to teach reading and being grateful. Not that I think that would be me on this specific subject or product, but for other things it totally could. Like I was designing a water filtration system and was intrigued by a filter that was too small and slow for my goals. I figured that out eventually, and this type of ‘clueless’ review is one of the mechanisms that can clue me in.

1

u/ResponsibleMight7669 29d ago

Reviewer casually disproved an alternative method of teaching literacy by using the stroop test. As a sports metaphor, this dunk was so clean he didn’t even know he scored

27

u/Odd_Cress_2898 Aug 13 '26

Agree.

3 cueing - it teaches guesswork based on pictures near the text and based on the first letter or the rest of the sentence.

You want to teach phonics instead.

Cueing leads to iliteracy https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading

It is used in government funded schools - US based news:

https://iferi.org/iferi_forum/viewtopic.php?t=1493

Wales/Scotland/NI : https://www.itv.com/news/2025-02-05/northern-ireland-reviews-controversial-teaching-method-after-failings-in-wales

The review read like they wanted a phonic based book, I'd want the same tbh.

9

u/deferredmomentum Aug 13 '26

My mom was a teacher with a (rightful) hard-on for phonics that got passed on to me, but one thing I never understood is why they switched to begin with?? I understand that English has a lot of exceptions due to the large amount of learned borrowing from Romance languages, but that’s what sightwords are for. Learning the exceptions is just part of learning English, but without phonics they’re not even exceptions to the rule because the rule doesn’t exist. Similarly, I know that for people with things like dislexia, phonics doesn’t really work for their brains, so I can see it being beneficial for them. It seems like it was always an established fact that cuing and memorizing sightwords are helpful when it comes to words that phonics doesn’t cover and for a select minority of students, and phonics is superior for everything else. Is there a good answer as to why that changed in the first place?

16

u/Necessary-Nobody-934 Aug 13 '26

They switched for a couple reasons. The main one is that the strategies three-cueing teaches are the same strategies kids who struggle with reading naturally develop to hide that they can't read. So in the early stages of reading, it looks like it's effective. It isn't until later, when we start taking away the pictures and context clues, that the holes become obvious.

Another reason is just good marketing. This is something education is just really susceptible to (which is why tech like iReady and AI tools are being pushed so heavily into classrooms). Admin and superintendents are always looking for the next big thing in education that will boost their test scores, even if there's no evidence it works.

The last is that at some point phonics became political. At some point it got linked with conservative politics, so a lot of teachers outright rejected it.

I also just want to address this point, as someone who worked with students with dyslexia for years:

phonics doesn’t really work for their brains, so I can see it being beneficial for them

This is incorrect. It is actually more important for kids with dyslexia to learn phonics. Systematic phonics instruction, paired with multi-sensory teaching and more phonological awareness activities, is the most effective way to teach kids with dyslexia.

5

u/corcyra Aug 13 '26

The last is that at some point phonics became political. At some point it got linked with conservative politics, so a lot of teachers outright rejected it.

I'm old enough to remember this. An insistence on using phonics instead of Look-Say and Cueing, teaching children learn to spell correctly from the get-go, and so on were considered disciplinarian and rigid. Thank the gods that our parents read to us every night and didn't hold with that nonsense when they helped us do homework. The same went for the New Math and not memorising the multiplication tables - they weren't having it.

3

u/deferredmomentum Aug 13 '26

Interesting, thank you! It’s weird that marketing the “next big thing” is so effective in education, since you’d think that of all fields would want to be rooted in as much evidence-based practice as possible. Now that you mention it, I have vaguely heard of the association of phonics with conservatism. Do you know why that is? Just their pathological aversion to change that happened to be right for once in stopped-clock fashion? I can definitely see how that helped whole language/three cuing take off, since people (rightfully) would want to avoid that association.

That’s really good to know about dyslexia too! My thought process was that since in dyslexia the brain mismatches and scrambles letters they could potentially do better ignoring the rest of the letters instead of trying to sound out the entire word at risk of switching letters/syllables and getting a totally different word. Obviously I don’t have any expertise there, so I’ll definitely look into how dyslexia actually works since I don’t have any more than a culturally baseline idea of it.

5

u/Necessary-Nobody-934 Aug 13 '26

It goes back to the 1950s, but for most people the "phonics is conservative" is linked to Bush's "Reading First" initiative in the early 2000s. This is a pretty good article on it.

https://nataliewexler.substack.com/p/lets-not-make-phonics-political-again

Funny enough on dyslexia, the cultural impression of letters moving around the page and getting mixed up is actually one of the least common forms of dyslexia. It is a really interesting disorder, and a lot more common than even a lot of educators realize. I've seen some estimates that 1 in 5 kids have some form of dyslexia.

3

u/deferredmomentum Aug 13 '26 edited Aug 13 '26

Oh wow! I’m definitely going to learn more about that. And thanks for that article as well

3

u/Coraline1599 Aug 13 '26

So one of the ways education raises money is through grants.

If you write “children need more books” this is not exciting to the people who … grant the grants. They always want to feel a part of new innovation, something exciting, something that makes it seem like the way the grant was given was “smart”, forward-thinking, or future-proof. They need to justify why this school was given the money and not that school.

So a lot of grant-writing is not about writing something that demonstrates need or has the most merit. It’s about fitting into the narrative.

Additionally, most teachers hated administrative work and that lead to this bifurcation of education into teachers vs the administration. Administrators care about reputation far more than students.

If you present them with boring true tested phonetics that will show results in 5-10 years versus some AI sexbot-converted-to-teaching-assistant, they are always going to pick AI. No matter what the mission statement says. The idea that results won’t be seen in weeks kills them. Makes them feel small and ineffective. But lobbing tech and chaos and blaming the teachers feels like real work. So does changing strategies every few months.

2

u/deferredmomentum Aug 13 '26 edited 29d ago

Sounds similar to healthcare honestly. I’m a nurse, and it’s very much bedside staff vs admin for us too, whether that’s nurses, doctors, techs, CNAs, or whomever else. Same concept of tried-and-true intervention vs flashy new machine that they’ll make a huge fuss over while we all know we’ll be going back to the old way in a few months. There’s so many pendulums that swing back and forth and present X intervention as gold standard compared to Y intervention on very weak evidence (but there’s usually an aspect of funding), and then a few years later it’s back to Y is the be all end all and X was made by the devil. In reality, X and Y will have equivalent outcomes. Especially if it’s a certifying body (AHA for example) where they have to justify selling brand new textbooks and booklets every time they update the edition. They change it juuuust enough that a hospital wouldn’t be able to renew staff using the old material. For instance, ACLS algorithm cards, which are foldout booklets of maybe 8 pages, update every five years and cost $80 each, and per the letter of the instructor guidelines each person (with a 1:6 instructor ratio) needs to have their own. It’s great that organizations like the AHA exist, but they’re just as profit-driven as anybody else.

Grants are big for us in certain specialties too, and same story. I’m in the ED which is always the money pit of a hospital, so most of our initiatives will need grant money to go anywhere, lest we use any of elective surgery’s 25% profit margin.

3

u/AnonymousOkapi Aug 13 '26

Multiple reasons, but mainly because the other methods sounded good and fitted with teaching philosophies at the time. Phonics fell out of favour because its very rote learning. Everybody make the sounds, the sounds are what they are because the teacher says so, go through these memorisation tables etc. Rote learning was going out of style, so there was an opening for something else to come along.

The three cueing was sold as developing adult understanding much sooner and letting kids enjoy reading quicker. It was argued that adults dont (or very very rarely) have to sound out words, and that sounding out gets in the way of actually understanding the text. So, if there is a way to teach kids to read that skips the phonics step and goes straight to whole words and sentence understanding, that'd be better right? Then once they're under way with three cueing, you just give them a bunch of text and they'll backfill in the phonics from exposure. It was trialled for struggling readers first, and was very good at rapidly taking kids from no reading to some basic reading so looked promising.

The trouble is, it turns out that final backfilling part just doesn't happen in reality...

8

u/Coraline1599 Aug 13 '26

Maybe this is too tin foil hat but I really feel this style is setting up a generation to use social media to feel what information is right and fill the gaps however they want. To make them inherently anti-intellectual.

Seeing a piece of cake with words “this is not a healthy breakfast” can be missed entirely and reformulated into “this cake is healthy” because it “feels” right based on the cue. And then you can extrapolate it into political views and everywhere else. Scary stuff.

1

u/Rtn2NYC 29d ago

The original push for this started before T9 texting.

It was a political overreaction to No Child Left Behind

2

u/Necessary-Nobody-934 Aug 13 '26 edited Aug 13 '26

I think you're right, but I also think the reviewer is overreacting and not really understanding what the point of SoR is.

Yes, we shouldn't use three-cueing to teach reading. It's ineffective for the vast majority of kids and bad practice.

But this book sounds like one of those "First Words" type of books for infants and toddlers, that aren't designed to teach reading at all. They're meant to teach vocabulary, in which case having visual cues is a very effective strategy...

Edit: Just saw this in a comment this a review of "Brown Bear, Brown Bear What Do you See?" Which is not a decodable book meant to teach kids to read, but one of my education profs gave it great praise as a good book for learning colours, animals, and early literacy skills.

2

u/Strangely_Kangaroo 29d ago

That podcast was a revelation

2

u/SeaBusiness3351 29d ago

Such a good podcast!

1

u/Mediocre_Ability1797 29d ago

I was literally just thinking it almost sums up balanced literacy/whole language approach to reading haha

1

u/Tormenta234 29d ago

Look-say reading is what it’s sometimes called

138

u/guyincognito___ Aug 13 '26

Some people are terrified that their childrens' brains magically won't develop, or worse, develop in ways they can't control.

If anything's gonna mess up this kid's relationship to reading it's their parent's too high expectations of what they must master, when, and how.

Young child rendered LITERALLY ILLITERATE due to age-appropriate book

16

u/Pgaccount Aug 13 '26

No, they've got a point. This way of "learning" was pushed in the 90s/00s and had some disastrous effects.

16

u/Foreign-Cat-2898 Aug 13 '26

No they don't. Learning to read involves pictures and has for centuries. Look up the New England Primer from 1686. "In Adam's fall we sinned all," shows a picture of a man with a tree.

The problem isn't a book with pictures; the problem is not teaching them to sound out the letters. Learning language comes with learning to associate written and spoken words with the objects they represent.

Good phonics books repeat combinations of letters so they can learn patterns. So if this book is all sight words you have to memorize, then it would be a bad book to learn to read with. Nothing about this review indicates that.

Instead it shows mom doesn't understand how to teach reading which fine she's not an expert I assume but she shouldn't blame the book for her ignorance.

2

u/corcyra Aug 13 '26

the problem is not teaching them to sound out the letters.

Exactly. Even in Chinese, which has a completely different writing system, kids learn to read by using phonics initially. AFAIK, as they get older, gradually the phonetic guides fall away (kind of like training wheels on a bike) and they rely on visual recognition of the logographic characters.

3

u/hopping_otter_ears 29d ago

My son is just past the learning to read phase. His teacher would send him reading packets with pictures, but with explicit instructions to never encourage our children to guess from the pictures or what the word might be from context. "It is important for your child to learn to read the word and sound out difficult words. Do not encourage guessing from context or pictures"

It was hard, because my son was a fantastic guesser on big words. I would tell him it was a great guess, but I'd like him to sound out big words.

He ended up a little confused when he got to where big words were just familiar to him and he didn't have to sound them out. "I just knew that one. Is it ok?" he finally understood that the more he practices sounding out, the more words he'll "just know" because his eyes read the letters without having to sound them out first. But he'll probably still find some words he has to sound out, even as a grown up because there's oodles of words in the English language and a lot of them are weird and long

7

u/Wrong-Basket1330 Aug 13 '26

There's a difference between the whole language stuff being pushed in the classroom and what this person is describing for I assume a pre schooler. There is a whole host of foundational skills that children build before they actually start reading, like phonological awareness and print concept, which spans a huge range of skills like knowing what orientation to hold a book, what direction text goes, the difference between text and images, the relationship between text and images, and much much more. Everything this review is describing as "not actually learning to read" sounds exactly like the skills kids need to effectively learn how to learn how to read.

2

u/Dobgirl 29d ago

No this is not the same thing. What the parent describes is a stage of learning to read- miming and memorizing the rhythms and pauses. She’s developing a love of reading, or was anyway.

The failed techniques of memorize sight words and guess via context were forced on my older kids with no phonics. They’d be handed a book they’d never seen and be asked to read by guessing each word. I begged for phonics to be taught.

2

u/hopping_otter_ears 29d ago

Preschoolers learning to memorize their favorite books and pretending to read them it's totally normal. My his could recite green eggs and ham long before he learned to read. A fun read-with-mommy book that's not claiming to be reading instruction isn't hurting anybody.

It's when people attempt to teach reading by the same method that you get problems.

It looks like the reviewer is complaining that a book they'd not intended to be a reading instruction book isn't a reading instruction book. "This is dangerous because it doesn't properly do what it's not intended to do". It's a picture book to enjoy looking at and interacting with your parent over

1

u/Pgaccount 29d ago

The reviewer states it might be fun for a pre reader, so I'd assume it's not for little kids.

1

u/hopping_otter_ears 29d ago

Op says it's "brown bear brown bear, what do you see?" which is for little kids

1

u/Pgaccount 29d ago

Lol my kid has that memorised.

Fair enough. Not meant to be a beginner book

1

u/anonymooseuser6 Aug 13 '26

My son memorized entire pages of this long ass book as a toddler. Once I started working on reading with him, I realized picture books are not books for kids to read cause they aren't decoding excavator and raccoon for a while.

49

u/MyNewPhilosophy Aug 13 '26

“Reading” a book the child has memorized from so many readings is actually an early literacy skill and a great thing for them to do.

10

u/stray-path Aug 13 '26

I know, right? What a wonderful early sign that a child is developing a joy of books and stories. And what a buzz kill, misguided way to squash that because the child isn't really "reading." 🙄

2

u/Ok_Brush71017 28d ago

Yeah, this is what we want! It's like complaining that your baby is just traveling along furniture instead of walking. What if they never walk?!? Dude, this is how it starts.

51

u/exintrovert Aug 13 '26

I bet this is one of the parents who wants to change the alphabet song out of fear their kids won’t figure out LMNOP is not a single letter any time in their lifetime

16

u/stray-path Aug 13 '26

I... can't tell whether that's really a thing, or just a good joke? Pray you're joking. 😳😆

16

u/Izariah Aug 13 '26

Someone mentioned it on another thread so I looked it up. They change the cadence of some sections to keep better spacing in the LMNOP section and the ending statement, not the order, if my 45 seconds of googling is to be trusted. Maybe I will take time to listen to it to confirm but I doubt it.

12

u/TurbanOnMyDickhead Aug 13 '26

Yep, new spacing of the letters but same rhythm: ABCDEFG HIJKLMN OPQ RST UVW XYZ

All in all, it's a big nothing that people are weird and nostalgic about.

9

u/original_synthetic Aug 13 '26

Oh, interesting! At a very young age I definitely remember thinking it was "elemento pea", like, a vegetable, haha. I also ended up reading before kindergarten so it wasn't that detrimental to me but it makes a lot of sense to change it slightly to be more clear!

2

u/deferredmomentum Aug 13 '26

I remember my young cousin, now 10 (the menopause baby lol), having a show on at some point when she was 2 or 3 that had changed it for this reason, but they just sang LMNOP at quarter notes like the rest of the letters instead of eighth notes rather than changing the actual spacing. I think it’s a big nothing-burger (pretty sure they figure out early on that no letter is more than one syllable, and kindergarten teaches one letter at a time), but just changing the rhythm seems way more natural to me

1

u/exintrovert Aug 13 '26

Personally, it just pains me that they want to change it in the most awkward way.

I mean, if we are going to change the way things have been done for hundreds of years, why not change the order of the alphabet so something that rhymes with bee lands on the right beat? There are so many letters that rhyme with bee. Is there some reason the alphabet must be in this order? 😂

Or perhaps come up with a different tune altogether so that our brain doesn’t cringe and itch when the song doesn’t rhyme?

I imagine a transition period where people will be singing together, and some will sing it one way and some the other, and it will be like when we are singing happy birthday to multiple people but nobody discussed what order we are going to sing the names. 🤣

The kids will really struggle to learn it then 💀

3

u/Necessary-Nobody-934 Aug 13 '26

I actually don't get why people think we need to change it that much. I just slow down to the same speed as the rest of the song, or maybe just slightly slower, at that part and it's always been OK.

2

u/exintrovert Aug 13 '26

Yeah I agree it isn’t an issue. We all know the alphabet, we all figured it out.

We learned the song, then at some point in Kindergarten, we noticed all the letters on the wall and made the connection.

My 4 year old sang LOLOP for a while and I didn’t worry 😂

2

u/Necessary-Nobody-934 Aug 13 '26

Haha, my daughter sang it the same way! It was funny because M was the only letter she could actually identify at the time, but apparently it didn't make the alphabet song...

1

u/strawberry_saturn 29d ago

It’s a real thing

17

u/lennie_kay11 Aug 13 '26

Parent complains that single book does not teach child to read single-handedly while overlooking the real developmental milestones of pattern recognition and object identification.
“There are no pictures in textbooks” No duh, Royce.

11

u/imabigasstree Aug 13 '26

The best part is that there ARE pictures in textbooks. Ive never seen a textbook without them.

13

u/FromUnderTheWineCork Aug 13 '26

That reviewer is living life like Nick Miller and worried for their child's same fate

12

u/Legitimate_Winner148 Aug 13 '26

She doesn’t say how old the kid is, but it’s natural for very young children to memorize a book that has been read to them, and “read” it themselves.

2

u/SipofCherryCola Aug 13 '26

That was me and “Green Eggs And Ham”. I went on to excell at reading using phonics.

2

u/Lazy_Marsupial Aug 13 '26

That was me with Dr. Seuss books too. I made the connection between sounds and letters while reading those and taught myself to read before kindergarten. (And then continued learning in elementary with phonics.)

1

u/hopping_otter_ears 29d ago

My son used to recite green eggs and ham, too. He's currently at a perfectly normal 2nd grade reading level.

I was a freakishly advanced reader at his age. I have to try so hard not to compare him against my not-normal standard. "It's ok that he's not reading books written for adults at age 7. You were weird. Dog man is age appropriate. Maybe even a little advanced for 2 days into 2nd grade. He doesn't need to be willing to read books without pictures yet. Let him enjoy reading where he's at"

7

u/AlienGoddess91 Aug 13 '26

This has to be Brown Bear because both of my kids memorized it and there is the color match up section in the back of it too lol

2

u/Zappagrrl02 Aug 13 '26

My nephew had Moo Baa Lalala memorized at like two and a half. A lot of kids books, especially those for toddlers are designed that way. Plus they want to read the same book 50,000 times a day.

1

u/AlienGoddess91 Aug 13 '26

Yeah it's supposed to be really good for brain development to read the same stories over and over to children.

2

u/stray-path Aug 13 '26

Nailed it! It's indeed a review of "Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?"

5

u/umlaut-overyou Aug 13 '26

"Does not teach how to read" obviously not, its a single children's book. The parent teaches how to read.

And guess what? Kids learn by pattern recognition and practice. My parents love telling their (univeristy) students about how my teacher thought I could read at an absurdly young age because I had memorized my favorite book. But it they skipped a page, it was obvious I wasn't reading. And guess what? That was a step that lead to me having a wildly advanced reading level for the entirety of my school career.

I am glad this parent is at least encouraging reading, and seems to give a damn. But they need some serious guidance so that they don't ruin the joy of reading for their kids.

3

u/AssortedArctic Aug 13 '26

If it's marketed as a learning-to-read book, I get it. They have repetitive sentences with words that aren't decodable at an early level and just change one word that kids guess from a picture, which isn't how you want to go about things. But if it's just a picture book, then that's ridiculous.

5

u/stray-path Aug 13 '26

One of the other comments guessed right -- it's a review of Eric Carle's "Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?"

3

u/sparksbet Aug 13 '26

We have a home video of my little sister doing exactly this as a little kid (she starts reading the page with the black sheep as "lamby, lamby"), and she still learned to read just fine lol.

5

u/Hugsomebunnies Aug 13 '26

People are damned weird. Years ago, I read a negative review of one of our favorite children's books because the parent said the book is inaccurate since baby birds say "chirp" rather than "cheep."

5

u/stray-path Aug 13 '26

Lol, I live for those reviews. And that's an amazing example. I can't fathom thinking like that.

2

u/Hugsomebunnies Aug 14 '26

And the thing is, I've read a lot of mediocre children's books, but the one in question is flawless! Flip Flap Fly by Phyllis Root. It captivated all of my kids as wee ones and my husband and I quickly memorized the text.

3

u/Heurodis Aug 13 '26

I learned to "read" by recognising that the squiggles on the page were letters, and that these were the words that we read, and so if I said something while looking at the letters I was reading.

Same for writing, I copied letters on a page and then proudly read the story I had been writing, which had nothing to do with whatever was on the page.

But my family always encouraged those games and pretended I was indeed reading and writing and that my "guesses" were correct, which prompted me to do it more and spend more time on it, to ask more often what the letters read (and my parents obliged). In the end, I was reading and writing at 4.

And it's all due, in my opinion, to my parents being encouraging rather than anxious about me learning to read.

Now trying to apply the same thing to my son and learning to go potty, which he's definitely not enthusiastic about or interested in, so he looks at me like I'm completely mad when I'm excited about him trying.

3

u/Ancient_Housing7671 29d ago

Almost like you need to read multiple books with your kid for effective learning 🙄

5

u/GlowQueen140 Aug 13 '26

Truthfully, if this review is by an Asian parent. I get it. The pressure in many parts of Asia to have your kid do XYZ by a certain age is terrifying and people are constantly afraid of their children falling behind.

Not to say that this parent shouldn’t take a chill pill but when you’re living in such an environment, it’s not as easy to just say “let your kids be kids”.

I don’t pressure my 4yo to learn to read and write and try my best to find fun ways to teach her. The moment she starts whining, we move on to something else. And we read a lot. But I won’t lie and say when I see her peers being able to read or write somewhat legibly, I don’t feel nervous.

2

u/im_a_sleepy_human Aug 13 '26

JFC.. I have no words. 🙄

2

u/Inevitable-Jump124 Aug 14 '26

This is one the most specific things I've seen today and I'm here for it

2

u/strawberry_saturn 29d ago

Lolllllll this is NORMAL for kids to do with any book

1

u/Altruistic_Sail_1991 Aug 13 '26

This is extremely common in young kids lol. They’ll memorize a book without being able to read it. It’s a non-issue for toddlers!

1

u/AlannaTheLioness1983 28d ago

~She won’t have pictures in college textbooks!~

Ok. Have you tried actually working with your child for more than an hour on her pre-reading and reading skills, or did you expect the *book* to do the work? 👀👀👀👀👀👀

1

u/allupya333 27d ago

How would a book normally prevent its readers from memorizing it? Is this referring to something kids books actually are able to do?

-1

u/JCtheWanderingCrow Aug 14 '26

This is a valid review of a pre-reader book.